Diagnostic accuracy of MRI and US for peroneal tendon tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING European Radiology Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-04 DOI:10.1007/s00330-025-11472-w
Samir Ghandour, Ronald W Mercer, James A Strahan, Lorena Bejarano-Pineda, Zachary E Stewart
{"title":"Diagnostic accuracy of MRI and US for peroneal tendon tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Samir Ghandour, Ronald W Mercer, James A Strahan, Lorena Bejarano-Pineda, Zachary E Stewart","doi":"10.1007/s00330-025-11472-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The diagnostic accuracy of US and MRI for identifying peroneal tendon tears is unknown. The aim of this study is to determine the accuracy of these modalities for the diagnosis of peroneal tendon tears.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Studies on diagnostic accuracy of MRI or US for peroneus brevis (PB) and/or longus pathology were searched in Scopus, EMBASE, and PubMed. Systematic review was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Pooled diagnostic accuracy of MRI and US were calculated by using a bivariate random-effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve studies were included for analysis. Eight studies reported on MRI, three reported on US, and one study included both. Studies were all at a high risk of bias, with only one study satisfying at least two of the four risk-of-bias criteria. Reported accuracy data was heterogeneous for both MRI and US. For PB tear, US showed higher pooled sensitivity than MRI (US: 93%; 95% CI: 75%, 98%; MRI: 73%; 95% CI: 56%, 87%); and similar pooled specificity to MRI (US: 85%; 95% CI: 55%, 96%; MRI: 88%; 95% CI: 70%, 95%) For peroneus longus, US had high pooled sensitivity (94%; 95% CI: 71%, 99%) and specificity (94%; 95% CI: 79%, 98%), whereas MRI was similarly specific (91%; 95% CI: 76%, 97%) but less sensitive (60%; 95% CI: 35%, 85%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>US was observed to be sensitive and specific for peroneal tendon tears, while MRI was found to be specific but insensitive. The scarcity of literature addressing this question and the heterogeneity of the results precluded any confident conclusion of the superiority/inferiority of either modality.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question Peroneal tendon tears are a common cause of lateral ankle pain, but the accuracy of MRI and US for identifying these tears is unknown. Finding Pooled data shows US to be both sensitive and specific and MRI to be specific and insensitive for peroneal tendon tears; however, the literature is scarce, at risk of bias, and results are inconsistent. Clinical relevance MRI and US are commonly utilized to assess lateral ankle pain. Though pooled-data suggests that US may be more sensitive, confident conclusion of the diagnostic accuracy of these modalities is limited by the level-of and quality-of the available evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"5360-5368"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-025-11472-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The diagnostic accuracy of US and MRI for identifying peroneal tendon tears is unknown. The aim of this study is to determine the accuracy of these modalities for the diagnosis of peroneal tendon tears.

Materials and methods: Studies on diagnostic accuracy of MRI or US for peroneus brevis (PB) and/or longus pathology were searched in Scopus, EMBASE, and PubMed. Systematic review was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Pooled diagnostic accuracy of MRI and US were calculated by using a bivariate random-effects model.

Results: Twelve studies were included for analysis. Eight studies reported on MRI, three reported on US, and one study included both. Studies were all at a high risk of bias, with only one study satisfying at least two of the four risk-of-bias criteria. Reported accuracy data was heterogeneous for both MRI and US. For PB tear, US showed higher pooled sensitivity than MRI (US: 93%; 95% CI: 75%, 98%; MRI: 73%; 95% CI: 56%, 87%); and similar pooled specificity to MRI (US: 85%; 95% CI: 55%, 96%; MRI: 88%; 95% CI: 70%, 95%) For peroneus longus, US had high pooled sensitivity (94%; 95% CI: 71%, 99%) and specificity (94%; 95% CI: 79%, 98%), whereas MRI was similarly specific (91%; 95% CI: 76%, 97%) but less sensitive (60%; 95% CI: 35%, 85%).

Conclusion: US was observed to be sensitive and specific for peroneal tendon tears, while MRI was found to be specific but insensitive. The scarcity of literature addressing this question and the heterogeneity of the results precluded any confident conclusion of the superiority/inferiority of either modality.

Key points: Question Peroneal tendon tears are a common cause of lateral ankle pain, but the accuracy of MRI and US for identifying these tears is unknown. Finding Pooled data shows US to be both sensitive and specific and MRI to be specific and insensitive for peroneal tendon tears; however, the literature is scarce, at risk of bias, and results are inconsistent. Clinical relevance MRI and US are commonly utilized to assess lateral ankle pain. Though pooled-data suggests that US may be more sensitive, confident conclusion of the diagnostic accuracy of these modalities is limited by the level-of and quality-of the available evidence.

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
MRI和US诊断腓骨肌腱撕裂的准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:US和MRI诊断腓骨肌腱撕裂的准确性尚不清楚。本研究的目的是确定这些模式诊断腓骨肌腱撕裂的准确性。材料与方法:在Scopus、EMBASE和PubMed中检索MRI或US对腓骨短肌(PB)和/或长肌病理诊断准确性的研究。使用QUADAS-2工具进行系统评价。采用双变量随机效应模型计算MRI和US的合并诊断准确性。结果:纳入12项研究进行分析。8项研究报告了MRI, 3项研究报告了US, 1项研究包括了两者。所有的研究都存在高偏倚风险,只有一项研究至少满足四项偏倚风险标准中的两项。MRI和US报告的准确性数据不一致。对于PB撕裂,US的综合敏感性高于MRI (US: 93%;95% ci: 75%, 98%;MRI: 73%;95% ci: 56%, 87%);与MRI相似的综合特异性(US: 85%;95% ci: 55%, 96%;MRI: 88%;95% CI: 70%, 95%)对于腓骨长肌,US具有很高的综合敏感性(94%;95% CI: 71%, 99%)和特异性(94%;95% CI: 79%, 98%),而MRI同样具有特异性(91%;95% CI: 76%, 97%)但不太敏感(60%;95% ci: 35%, 85%)。结论:US对腓骨肌腱撕裂有敏感性和特异性,而MRI对腓骨肌腱撕裂有特异性但不敏感。关于这个问题的文献的缺乏和结果的异质性排除了任何对任何一种模式的优劣有信心的结论。腓肌腱撕裂是踝关节外侧疼痛的常见原因,但MRI和US识别这些撕裂的准确性尚不清楚。汇总数据显示,US对腓骨肌腱撕裂既敏感又特异,MRI对腓骨肌腱撕裂既特异又不敏感;然而,文献很少,存在偏倚的风险,结果也不一致。临床相关性MRI和US通常用于评估踝关节外侧疼痛。虽然汇总数据表明US可能更敏感,但这些模式的诊断准确性的可靠结论受到现有证据的水平和质量的限制。
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
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
期刊最新文献
ESR Innovation in Focus: photon-counting detector CT. ESR Innovation in Focus: Robotics applications for interventional radiology. ESR Essentials: imaging in nasal obstruction and epistaxis-practice recommendations by the European Society of Head and Neck Radiology. Feasibility of BMI-based sub-milliSievert low-dose CT in individualized detection of lung nodules. ESR Innovation in Focus: High-relaxivity gadolinium-based contrast agents.
×
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:604180095
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