Cargando…
Performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis
OBJECTIVES: Accurate prenatal diagnosis of placenta accrete spectrum disorder (PAS) remains a challenge, and the reported diagnostic value of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) varies widely. This study aims to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of US as compared...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Vienna
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8940971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35316430 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01192-w |
_version_ | 1784673011778977792 |
---|---|
author | Hong, Shibin Le, Yiping Lio, Ka U. Zhang, Ting Zhang, Yu Zhang, Ning |
author_facet | Hong, Shibin Le, Yiping Lio, Ka U. Zhang, Ting Zhang, Yu Zhang, Ning |
author_sort | Hong, Shibin |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Accurate prenatal diagnosis of placenta accrete spectrum disorder (PAS) remains a challenge, and the reported diagnostic value of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) varies widely. This study aims to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of US as compared with MRI in the detection of PAS within the identical patient population. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Google scholar and Cochrane library were searched. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were calculated. Subgroup analysis was also performed to elucidate the heterogeneity of results. RESULTS: A total of 18 articles comprising 861 pregnancies were included in the study. The overall diagnostic accuracy of US for identification of PAS was as follows: sensitivity [0.90 (0.86–0.93)], specificity [0.83 (0.79–0.86)], DOR [39.5 (19.6–79.7)]. The overall diagnostic accuracy of MRI for identification of PAS was as follows: sensitivity [0.89 (0.85-0.92)], specificity [0.87 (0.83–0.89)], DOR [37.4 (17.0–82.3)]. The pooled sensitivity (p = 0.808) and specificity (p = 0.413) between US and MRI are not significantly different. SROC analysis revealed that there was no statistical difference (p = 0.552) in US and MRI for the overall predictive accuracy of PAS. Furthermore, in the subgroup analysis of between retrospective and prospective studies, between earlier and most recent studies, there was no statistical difference (p > 0.05) in diagnostic accuracy of US and MRI for the detection of PAS. CONCLUSIONS: Both ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed comparable accuracy in the prenatal diagnosis of placenta accrete spectrum disorder (PAS). Routine employment of MRI with relatively high expense in the prenatal identification of PAS should not be recommended. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8940971 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Vienna |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89409712022-04-08 Performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis Hong, Shibin Le, Yiping Lio, Ka U. Zhang, Ting Zhang, Yu Zhang, Ning Insights Imaging Original Article OBJECTIVES: Accurate prenatal diagnosis of placenta accrete spectrum disorder (PAS) remains a challenge, and the reported diagnostic value of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) varies widely. This study aims to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of US as compared with MRI in the detection of PAS within the identical patient population. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Google scholar and Cochrane library were searched. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were calculated. Subgroup analysis was also performed to elucidate the heterogeneity of results. RESULTS: A total of 18 articles comprising 861 pregnancies were included in the study. The overall diagnostic accuracy of US for identification of PAS was as follows: sensitivity [0.90 (0.86–0.93)], specificity [0.83 (0.79–0.86)], DOR [39.5 (19.6–79.7)]. The overall diagnostic accuracy of MRI for identification of PAS was as follows: sensitivity [0.89 (0.85-0.92)], specificity [0.87 (0.83–0.89)], DOR [37.4 (17.0–82.3)]. The pooled sensitivity (p = 0.808) and specificity (p = 0.413) between US and MRI are not significantly different. SROC analysis revealed that there was no statistical difference (p = 0.552) in US and MRI for the overall predictive accuracy of PAS. Furthermore, in the subgroup analysis of between retrospective and prospective studies, between earlier and most recent studies, there was no statistical difference (p > 0.05) in diagnostic accuracy of US and MRI for the detection of PAS. CONCLUSIONS: Both ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed comparable accuracy in the prenatal diagnosis of placenta accrete spectrum disorder (PAS). Routine employment of MRI with relatively high expense in the prenatal identification of PAS should not be recommended. Springer Vienna 2022-03-22 /pmc/articles/PMC8940971/ /pubmed/35316430 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01192-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Hong, Shibin Le, Yiping Lio, Ka U. Zhang, Ting Zhang, Yu Zhang, Ning Performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8940971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35316430 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01192-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hongshibin performancecomparisonofultrasonographyandmagneticresonanceimagingintheirdiagnosticaccuracyofplacentaaccretaspectrumdisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT leyiping performancecomparisonofultrasonographyandmagneticresonanceimagingintheirdiagnosticaccuracyofplacentaaccretaspectrumdisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT liokau performancecomparisonofultrasonographyandmagneticresonanceimagingintheirdiagnosticaccuracyofplacentaaccretaspectrumdisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT zhangting performancecomparisonofultrasonographyandmagneticresonanceimagingintheirdiagnosticaccuracyofplacentaaccretaspectrumdisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT zhangyu performancecomparisonofultrasonographyandmagneticresonanceimagingintheirdiagnosticaccuracyofplacentaaccretaspectrumdisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT zhangning performancecomparisonofultrasonographyandmagneticresonanceimagingintheirdiagnosticaccuracyofplacentaaccretaspectrumdisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |