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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |