Systematic review and meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING BMC Medical Imaging Pub Date : 2025-03-20 DOI:10.1186/s12880-025-01629-w
Chuan-Hua Yang, Miao Yu, Deng-Chao Wang
{"title":"Systematic review and meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.","authors":"Chuan-Hua Yang, Miao Yu, Deng-Chao Wang","doi":"10.1186/s12880-025-01629-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pulmonary embolism is a significant clinical challenge with high mortality risk. Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA) is the gold standard for diagnosis but involves radiation risks. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) offers a radiation-free alternative, yet its adoption is hindered by inconsistent validation of its diagnostic accuracy. This study systematically assesses MRI's efficacy in diagnosing pulmonary embolism, incorporating a broad range of literature to ensure comprehensive analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Relevant studies on the diagnostic use of MRI for pulmonary embolism were collected through computer searches of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc (CBM) databases up to May 12, 2024. Literature was screened based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extracted, and study quality assessed according to Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) standards. Data analysis was performed using Stata (versions 17.0 and 14.0) and Meta-Disc 1.4 software. Stata software was used to calculate pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio, and to plot forest plots, hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves, and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves. The area under the SROC curve (AUC) was calculated, and publication bias was assessed through Deek's funnel plot, Egger's test, and Begg's test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen articles involving 1,264 participants were included. The meta-analysis showed that MRI for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism had a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.79-0.94) and a specificity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.89-0.97). The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 14.6 (95% CI: 8.0-26.7) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.06-0.23). The diagnostic odds ratio was 121 (95% CI: 49-299). The AUC of the SROC was 0.97. Deek's funnel plot suggested potential publication bias in the studies included.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MRI exhibits high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, demonstrating excellent diagnostic efficacy. Despite potential publication bias, MRI continues to show strong potential for clinical application.</p>","PeriodicalId":9020,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Imaging","volume":"25 1","pages":"92"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11924644/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-025-01629-w","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

Background: Pulmonary embolism is a significant clinical challenge with high mortality risk. Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA) is the gold standard for diagnosis but involves radiation risks. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) offers a radiation-free alternative, yet its adoption is hindered by inconsistent validation of its diagnostic accuracy. This study systematically assesses MRI's efficacy in diagnosing pulmonary embolism, incorporating a broad range of literature to ensure comprehensive analysis.

Methods: Relevant studies on the diagnostic use of MRI for pulmonary embolism were collected through computer searches of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc (CBM) databases up to May 12, 2024. Literature was screened based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extracted, and study quality assessed according to Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) standards. Data analysis was performed using Stata (versions 17.0 and 14.0) and Meta-Disc 1.4 software. Stata software was used to calculate pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio, and to plot forest plots, hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves, and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves. The area under the SROC curve (AUC) was calculated, and publication bias was assessed through Deek's funnel plot, Egger's test, and Begg's test.

Results: Eighteen articles involving 1,264 participants were included. The meta-analysis showed that MRI for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism had a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.79-0.94) and a specificity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.89-0.97). The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 14.6 (95% CI: 8.0-26.7) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.06-0.23). The diagnostic odds ratio was 121 (95% CI: 49-299). The AUC of the SROC was 0.97. Deek's funnel plot suggested potential publication bias in the studies included.

Conclusion: MRI exhibits high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, demonstrating excellent diagnostic efficacy. Despite potential publication bias, MRI continues to show strong potential for clinical application.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
磁共振成像诊断肺栓塞的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:肺栓塞是一种具有高死亡率的重大临床挑战。计算机断层肺血管造影(CTPA)是诊断的金标准,但涉及辐射风险。磁共振成像(MRI)提供了一种无辐射的替代方案,但其采用受到其诊断准确性验证不一致的阻碍。本研究系统地评估了MRI在诊断肺栓塞中的有效性,并纳入了广泛的文献以确保全面分析。方法:通过计算机检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国知网(CNKI)、万方数据库、VIP数据库、中国生物医学光盘(CBM)数据库,收集截至2024年5月12日MRI诊断肺栓塞的相关研究。根据纳入和排除标准筛选文献,提取数据,并根据诊断准确性研究质量评估-2 (QUADAS-2)标准评估研究质量。采用Stata(17.0和14.0版本)和Meta-Disc 1.4软件进行数据分析。采用Stata软件计算合并敏感性、合并特异性、阳性似然比、阴性似然比和诊断优势比,并绘制森林图、分层综合受试者工作特征(HSROC)曲线和综合受试者工作特征(SROC)曲线。计算SROC曲线下面积(AUC),通过Deek’s漏斗图、Egger’s检验和Begg’s检验评估发表偏倚。结果:纳入文献18篇,受试者1264人。荟萃分析显示,MRI诊断肺栓塞的总敏感性为0.89 (95% CI: 0.79-0.94),特异性为0.94 (95% CI: 0.89-0.97)。合并阳性似然比为14.6 (95% CI: 8.0 ~ 26.7),阴性似然比为0.12 (95% CI: 0.06 ~ 0.23)。诊断优势比为121 (95% CI: 49-299)。SROC的AUC为0.97。Deek漏斗图提示纳入的研究存在潜在的发表偏倚。结论:MRI对肺栓塞的诊断具有较高的敏感性和特异性,具有较好的诊断效果。尽管存在潜在的发表偏倚,MRI仍然显示出强大的临床应用潜力。
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
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
Evaluation of trabecular architecture and bone density in periradicular bone of dilacerated mandibular third molars: a cone beam computed tomography study. Evaluating the feasibility and radiation dose reduction of low-dose computed tomography in radiofrequency ablation for liver tumours. Predicting overall survival after initial chemotherapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma using CT nomogram analysis. CMR-quantified epicardial adipose tissue heterogeneity and its predictive value for ventricular and atrial arrhythmias after myocardial infarction. An interpretable machine learning model for preoperative prediction of aldosterone secretion and CYP11B2 status of adrenal gland.
×
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