Comparative diagnostic performance of imaging modalities in chronic pancreatitis: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING BMC Medical Imaging Pub Date : 2025-01-02 DOI:10.1186/s12880-024-01541-9
Ping Yu, Xujia Zhou, Li Yue, Ling Zhang, Yuan Zhou, Fei Jiang
{"title":"Comparative diagnostic performance of imaging modalities in chronic pancreatitis: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.","authors":"Ping Yu, Xujia Zhou, Li Yue, Ling Zhang, Yuan Zhou, Fei Jiang","doi":"10.1186/s12880-024-01541-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We aimed to perform a Bayesian network meta-analysis to assess the comparative diagnostic performance of different imaging modalities in chronic pancreatitis(CP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant publications until March 2024. All studies evaluating the head-to-head diagnostic performance of imaging modalities in CP were included. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the sensitivity and specificity between the imaging modalities. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Performance Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to evaluate the quality of studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This meta-analysis incorporated 17 studies. Network meta-analytic results indicated that endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) achieved the highest surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) value at 0.86 for sensitivity. Conversely, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated best specificity, recording the highest SUCRA value at 0.99. Ultrasonography (US) displayed comparatively lower sensitivity than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (relative risk[RR]: 0.83, 95% Confidence Interval[CI]: 0.69-0.99) and EUS (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57-0.91). MRI outperformed all other imaging modalities in terms of specificity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It appears that EUS demonstrates higher sensitivity, while MRI exhibits higher specificity in patients with chronic pancreatitis. However, it is crucial to note that our analysis was limited to the diagnostic performance and did not evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these various imaging modalities. Consequently, further extensive studies are needed to assess the benefit-to-risk ratios comprehensively.</p>","PeriodicalId":9020,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Imaging","volume":"25 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11697682/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-024-01541-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to perform a Bayesian network meta-analysis to assess the comparative diagnostic performance of different imaging modalities in chronic pancreatitis(CP).

Methods: The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant publications until March 2024. All studies evaluating the head-to-head diagnostic performance of imaging modalities in CP were included. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the sensitivity and specificity between the imaging modalities. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Performance Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to evaluate the quality of studies.

Results: This meta-analysis incorporated 17 studies. Network meta-analytic results indicated that endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) achieved the highest surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) value at 0.86 for sensitivity. Conversely, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated best specificity, recording the highest SUCRA value at 0.99. Ultrasonography (US) displayed comparatively lower sensitivity than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (relative risk[RR]: 0.83, 95% Confidence Interval[CI]: 0.69-0.99) and EUS (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57-0.91). MRI outperformed all other imaging modalities in terms of specificity.

Conclusions: It appears that EUS demonstrates higher sensitivity, while MRI exhibits higher specificity in patients with chronic pancreatitis. However, it is crucial to note that our analysis was limited to the diagnostic performance and did not evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these various imaging modalities. Consequently, further extensive studies are needed to assess the benefit-to-risk ratios comprehensively.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Imaging
BMC Medical Imaging RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
3.70%
发文量
198
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Imaging is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in the development, evaluation, and use of imaging techniques and image processing tools to diagnose and manage disease.
期刊最新文献
High-risk habitat radiomics model based on ultrasound images for predicting lateral neck lymph node metastasis in differentiated thyroid cancer. Investigating resting-state functional connectivity changes within procedural memory network across neuropsychiatric disorders using fMRI. Optimizing hip MRI: enhancing image quality and elevating inter-observer consistency using deep learning-powered reconstruction. Comparison of diagnostic performance for pulmonary nodule detection between free-breathing spiral ultrashort echo time and free-breathing radial volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination. Knowledge discovery from database: MRI radiomic features to assess recurrence risk in high-grade meningiomas.
×
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