Cargando…

The diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and (1)H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis compared with liver biopsy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To meta-analyse the diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and (1)H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis. METHODS: From a comprehensive literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane (up to November 2009), articles were selected that investigated the diagnostic performance i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bohte, Anneloes E., van Werven, Jochem R., Bipat, Shandra, Stoker, Jaap
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20680289
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1905-5
_version_ 1782193122704359424
author Bohte, Anneloes E.
van Werven, Jochem R.
Bipat, Shandra
Stoker, Jaap
author_facet Bohte, Anneloes E.
van Werven, Jochem R.
Bipat, Shandra
Stoker, Jaap
author_sort Bohte, Anneloes E.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To meta-analyse the diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and (1)H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis. METHODS: From a comprehensive literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane (up to November 2009), articles were selected that investigated the diagnostic performance imaging techniques for evaluating hepatic steatosis with histopathology as the reference standard. Cut-off values for the presence of steatosis on liver biopsy were subdivided into four groups: (1) >0, >2 and >5% steatosis; (2) >10, >15 and >20%; (3) >25, >30 and >33%; (4) >50, >60 and >66%. Per group, summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity were calculated. The natural-logarithm of the diagnostic odds ratio (lnDOR) was used as a single indicator of test performance. RESULTS: 46 articles were included. Mean sensitivity estimates for subgroups were 73.3–90.5% (US), 46.1–72.0% (CT), 82.0–97.4% (MRI) and 72.7–88.5% ((1)H-MRS). Mean specificity ranges were 69.6–85.2% (US), 88.1–94.6% (CT), 76.1–95.3% (MRI) and 92.0–95.7% ((1)H-MRS). Overall performance (lnDOR) of MRI and (1)H-MRS was better than that for US and CT for all subgroups, with significant differences in groups 1 and 2. CONCLUSION: MRI and (1)H-MRS can be considered techniques of choice for accurate evaluation of hepatic steatosis. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00330-010-1905-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Text
id pubmed-2995875
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-29958752011-01-04 The diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and (1)H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis compared with liver biopsy: a meta-analysis Bohte, Anneloes E. van Werven, Jochem R. Bipat, Shandra Stoker, Jaap Eur Radiol Gastrointestinal OBJECTIVE: To meta-analyse the diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and (1)H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis. METHODS: From a comprehensive literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane (up to November 2009), articles were selected that investigated the diagnostic performance imaging techniques for evaluating hepatic steatosis with histopathology as the reference standard. Cut-off values for the presence of steatosis on liver biopsy were subdivided into four groups: (1) >0, >2 and >5% steatosis; (2) >10, >15 and >20%; (3) >25, >30 and >33%; (4) >50, >60 and >66%. Per group, summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity were calculated. The natural-logarithm of the diagnostic odds ratio (lnDOR) was used as a single indicator of test performance. RESULTS: 46 articles were included. Mean sensitivity estimates for subgroups were 73.3–90.5% (US), 46.1–72.0% (CT), 82.0–97.4% (MRI) and 72.7–88.5% ((1)H-MRS). Mean specificity ranges were 69.6–85.2% (US), 88.1–94.6% (CT), 76.1–95.3% (MRI) and 92.0–95.7% ((1)H-MRS). Overall performance (lnDOR) of MRI and (1)H-MRS was better than that for US and CT for all subgroups, with significant differences in groups 1 and 2. CONCLUSION: MRI and (1)H-MRS can be considered techniques of choice for accurate evaluation of hepatic steatosis. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00330-010-1905-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer-Verlag 2010-07-31 2011 /pmc/articles/PMC2995875/ /pubmed/20680289 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1905-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2010 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
spellingShingle Gastrointestinal
Bohte, Anneloes E.
van Werven, Jochem R.
Bipat, Shandra
Stoker, Jaap
The diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and (1)H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis compared with liver biopsy: a meta-analysis
title The diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and (1)H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis compared with liver biopsy: a meta-analysis
title_full The diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and (1)H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis compared with liver biopsy: a meta-analysis
title_fullStr The diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and (1)H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis compared with liver biopsy: a meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed The diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and (1)H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis compared with liver biopsy: a meta-analysis
title_short The diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and (1)H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis compared with liver biopsy: a meta-analysis
title_sort diagnostic accuracy of us, ct, mri and (1)h-mrs for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis compared with liver biopsy: a meta-analysis
topic Gastrointestinal
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20680289
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1905-5
work_keys_str_mv AT bohteanneloese thediagnosticaccuracyofusctmriand1hmrsfortheevaluationofhepaticsteatosiscomparedwithliverbiopsyametaanalysis
AT vanwervenjochemr thediagnosticaccuracyofusctmriand1hmrsfortheevaluationofhepaticsteatosiscomparedwithliverbiopsyametaanalysis
AT bipatshandra thediagnosticaccuracyofusctmriand1hmrsfortheevaluationofhepaticsteatosiscomparedwithliverbiopsyametaanalysis
AT stokerjaap thediagnosticaccuracyofusctmriand1hmrsfortheevaluationofhepaticsteatosiscomparedwithliverbiopsyametaanalysis
AT bohteanneloese diagnosticaccuracyofusctmriand1hmrsfortheevaluationofhepaticsteatosiscomparedwithliverbiopsyametaanalysis
AT vanwervenjochemr diagnosticaccuracyofusctmriand1hmrsfortheevaluationofhepaticsteatosiscomparedwithliverbiopsyametaanalysis
AT bipatshandra diagnosticaccuracyofusctmriand1hmrsfortheevaluationofhepaticsteatosiscomparedwithliverbiopsyametaanalysis
AT stokerjaap diagnosticaccuracyofusctmriand1hmrsfortheevaluationofhepaticsteatosiscomparedwithliverbiopsyametaanalysis