Cargando…

Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography on the detection of cesarean scar pregnancy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: : There is still a debate on which imaging method is the best to diagnose cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Accordingly, this study aimed to analyze the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US) on the detection of CSP based on current evidence in t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xiao, Xiaoyi, Ding, Rixing, Peng, Lei, Liu, Huaping, Zhu, Yun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9191567/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35049166
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000027532
_version_ 1784726043104378880
author Xiao, Xiaoyi
Ding, Rixing
Peng, Lei
Liu, Huaping
Zhu, Yun
author_facet Xiao, Xiaoyi
Ding, Rixing
Peng, Lei
Liu, Huaping
Zhu, Yun
author_sort Xiao, Xiaoyi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: : There is still a debate on which imaging method is the best to diagnose cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Accordingly, this study aimed to analyze the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US) on the detection of CSP based on current evidence in the literature. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Chinese Biomedical Documentation Service System, WanFang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched up to June 2020. The included studies were all comparisons of MRI and US in the diagnosis of CSP that adopted postoperative histological examination as the reference standard. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated for MRI and US. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included, with a total sample size of 948 patients. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and AUC of MRI in diagnosing CSP were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.95), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75-0.89), 5.46 (95% CI, 3.70-8.05), 0.08 (95% CI, 0.06-0.11), and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.97), respectively; for US they were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.88), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.62-0.81), 3.06 (95% CI, 2.22-4.21), 0.23 (95% CI, 0.18-0.28), and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), respectively. CONCLUSION: We found that both MRI and US effectively diagnosed CSP; however, MRI had a higher diagnostic performance in detecting CSP than US.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9191567
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91915672022-06-14 Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography on the detection of cesarean scar pregnancy: A meta-analysis Xiao, Xiaoyi Ding, Rixing Peng, Lei Liu, Huaping Zhu, Yun Medicine (Baltimore) 5600 BACKGROUND: : There is still a debate on which imaging method is the best to diagnose cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Accordingly, this study aimed to analyze the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US) on the detection of CSP based on current evidence in the literature. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Chinese Biomedical Documentation Service System, WanFang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched up to June 2020. The included studies were all comparisons of MRI and US in the diagnosis of CSP that adopted postoperative histological examination as the reference standard. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated for MRI and US. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included, with a total sample size of 948 patients. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and AUC of MRI in diagnosing CSP were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.95), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75-0.89), 5.46 (95% CI, 3.70-8.05), 0.08 (95% CI, 0.06-0.11), and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.97), respectively; for US they were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.88), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.62-0.81), 3.06 (95% CI, 2.22-4.21), 0.23 (95% CI, 0.18-0.28), and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), respectively. CONCLUSION: We found that both MRI and US effectively diagnosed CSP; however, MRI had a higher diagnostic performance in detecting CSP than US. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021-12-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9191567/ /pubmed/35049166 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000027532 Text en Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
spellingShingle 5600
Xiao, Xiaoyi
Ding, Rixing
Peng, Lei
Liu, Huaping
Zhu, Yun
Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography on the detection of cesarean scar pregnancy: A meta-analysis
title Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography on the detection of cesarean scar pregnancy: A meta-analysis
title_full Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography on the detection of cesarean scar pregnancy: A meta-analysis
title_fullStr Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography on the detection of cesarean scar pregnancy: A meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography on the detection of cesarean scar pregnancy: A meta-analysis
title_short Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography on the detection of cesarean scar pregnancy: A meta-analysis
title_sort diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography on the detection of cesarean scar pregnancy: a meta-analysis
topic 5600
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9191567/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35049166
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000027532
work_keys_str_mv AT xiaoxiaoyi diagnosticperformanceofmagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographyonthedetectionofcesareanscarpregnancyametaanalysis
AT dingrixing diagnosticperformanceofmagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographyonthedetectionofcesareanscarpregnancyametaanalysis
AT penglei diagnosticperformanceofmagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographyonthedetectionofcesareanscarpregnancyametaanalysis
AT liuhuaping diagnosticperformanceofmagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographyonthedetectionofcesareanscarpregnancyametaanalysis
AT zhuyun diagnosticperformanceofmagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographyonthedetectionofcesareanscarpregnancyametaanalysis