Diagnostic Potential of Complementation of MRI to Prenatal Ultrasound for Detecting Orofacial Clefts in High-Risk Fetuses: A Network Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q2 Dentistry Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal Pub Date : 2024-03-15 DOI:10.1177/10556656241231119
Jing Zhai, Shuyan You, Zhonghua Liang, Haihua Yu, Chengfeng Zhu, Lu Han
{"title":"Diagnostic Potential of Complementation of MRI to Prenatal Ultrasound for Detecting Orofacial Clefts in High-Risk Fetuses: A Network Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Jing Zhai, Shuyan You, Zhonghua Liang, Haihua Yu, Chengfeng Zhu, Lu Han","doi":"10.1177/10556656241231119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the complementation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to prenatal ultrasound (US) with prenatal US alone in detecting orofacial clefts in high-risk fetuses.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A network meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Literature retrieval in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library, and meta-analysis based on STATA 14.0.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Fetuses were at high-risk for orofacial clefts.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Prenatal US and the complementation of MRI to prenatal US.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies involving 776 patients were included. Direct meta-analysis showed that the complementation of MRI to prenatal US did not differ from prenatal US in detecting orofacial clefts if the type of orofacial clefts was not distinguished. Subgroup analysis showed that the specificity of prenatal US for the detection of isolated cleft palate (CP) was lower than that of the complementation of MRI to prenatal US. Furthermore, network meta-analysis consistently suggested a comparable diagnostic value between prenatal US and the complementation of MRI to prenatal US. Moreover, subgroup analysis showed that the specificity of prenatal US was significantly lower than that of complementation of MRI to prenatal US for the detection of isolated CP.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>MRI is more accurate than ultrasound in detecting cleft palate. Therefore, MRI should be offered if there is a fetus with a possible or ultrasound diagnosis of cleft palate, especially if the evaluation of cleft palate is deemed unsatisfactory after careful evaluation of the images.</p>","PeriodicalId":49220,"journal":{"name":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656241231119","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the complementation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to prenatal ultrasound (US) with prenatal US alone in detecting orofacial clefts in high-risk fetuses.

Design: A network meta-analysis.

Setting: Literature retrieval in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library, and meta-analysis based on STATA 14.0.

Patients: Fetuses were at high-risk for orofacial clefts.

Interventions: Prenatal US and the complementation of MRI to prenatal US.

Main outcome measures: The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC).

Results: Thirteen studies involving 776 patients were included. Direct meta-analysis showed that the complementation of MRI to prenatal US did not differ from prenatal US in detecting orofacial clefts if the type of orofacial clefts was not distinguished. Subgroup analysis showed that the specificity of prenatal US for the detection of isolated cleft palate (CP) was lower than that of the complementation of MRI to prenatal US. Furthermore, network meta-analysis consistently suggested a comparable diagnostic value between prenatal US and the complementation of MRI to prenatal US. Moreover, subgroup analysis showed that the specificity of prenatal US was significantly lower than that of complementation of MRI to prenatal US for the detection of isolated CP.

Conclusions: MRI is more accurate than ultrasound in detecting cleft palate. Therefore, MRI should be offered if there is a fetus with a possible or ultrasound diagnosis of cleft palate, especially if the evaluation of cleft palate is deemed unsatisfactory after careful evaluation of the images.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
磁共振成像与产前超声波互补对检测高风险胎儿口面裂的诊断潜力:一项网络元分析
摘要比较磁共振成像(MRI)与产前超声波(US)在检测高风险胎儿口面裂方面的互补性:设计:网络荟萃分析:在 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 图书馆检索文献,并基于 STATA 14.0 进行荟萃分析:干预措施:产前 US 和补体检测:主要结果测量:主要结果测量:综合敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)、诊断几率比(DOR)和曲线下面积(AUC):结果:共纳入 13 项研究,涉及 776 名患者。直接荟萃分析显示,如果不区分口面裂的类型,核磁共振成像与产前超声波的互补性在检测口面裂方面与产前超声波没有区别。亚组分析表明,产前 US 检测孤立性腭裂(CP)的特异性低于磁共振成像与产前 US 的互补性。此外,网络荟萃分析一致表明,产前 US 和 MRI 与产前 US 的互补诊断价值相当。此外,亚组分析表明,在检测孤立性 CP 方面,产前 US 的特异性明显低于磁共振成像与产前 US 的互补:结论:磁共振成像在检测腭裂方面比超声波更准确。因此,如果胎儿可能或超声诊断为腭裂,尤其是在仔细评估图像后认为腭裂评估不满意时,应进行核磁共振成像检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-SURGERY
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
36.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal (CPCJ) is the premiere peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, international journal dedicated to current research on etiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in all areas pertaining to craniofacial anomalies. CPCJ reports on basic science and clinical research aimed at better elucidating the pathogenesis, pathology, and optimal methods of treatment of cleft and craniofacial anomalies. The journal strives to foster communication and cooperation among professionals from all specialties.
期刊最新文献
Caring for a Child with a Cleft Lip and/or Palate: A Narrative Review. Effect of Age and Gender on Nasalance Across the Lifespan: A Systematic Review. Expanding Accessibility in Cleft Care: The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Improving Literacy of Alveolar Bone Grafting Information. Postoperative Feeding in Cleft Surgery: A Systematic Review. Reduction Cranioplasty in Cases of Hydrocephalic Macrocephaly: Pearls and Pitfalls of Computer-Assisted Surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1