Diagnostic performance of dual-energy CT in detecting bone marrow edema in lower limb joint injuries: a meta-analysis

IF 1.8 4区医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Clinical Imaging Pub Date : 2024-09-02 DOI:10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110273

{"title":"Diagnostic performance of dual-energy CT in detecting bone marrow edema in lower limb joint injuries: a meta-analysis","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in detecting bone marrow edema (BME) in patients with lower limb joint injuries.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A thorough literature search was conducted across the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies up to April 2024. Studies examining the diagnostic performance of DECT in detecting BME in lower limb joint injuries patients were included. Sensitivity and specificity were evaluated using the inverse variance method and transformed via the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. Furthermore, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool was utilized to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>This meta-analysis included 17 articles involving 625 patients. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for DECT in detecting BME in lower limb joint injuries patients were 0.82 (95 % CI: 0.76–0.87), 0.95 (95 % CI: 0.92–0.97), and 0.95 (95 % CI: 0.93–0.97), respectively. The pooled sensitivity of DECT for detecting BME in knee, hip, and ankle joint injuries was 0.80, 0.84, and 0.80, with no significant difference among these joints (<em>P</em> = 0.55). The pooled specificity for knee, hip, and ankle injuries was 0.95, 0.97, and 0.89. Specificity differed significantly among the joints (<em>P</em> < 0.01), with the highest specificity in hip injuries.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Our meta-analysis indicates that DECT demonstrates high diagnostic performance in detecting BME in patients with lower limb joint injuries, with the highest specificity observed in hip joint injuries. To validate these findings, further larger prospective studies are necessary.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50680,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899707124002031","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in detecting bone marrow edema (BME) in patients with lower limb joint injuries.

Methods

A thorough literature search was conducted across the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies up to April 2024. Studies examining the diagnostic performance of DECT in detecting BME in lower limb joint injuries patients were included. Sensitivity and specificity were evaluated using the inverse variance method and transformed via the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. Furthermore, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool was utilized to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies.

Results

This meta-analysis included 17 articles involving 625 patients. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for DECT in detecting BME in lower limb joint injuries patients were 0.82 (95 % CI: 0.76–0.87), 0.95 (95 % CI: 0.92–0.97), and 0.95 (95 % CI: 0.93–0.97), respectively. The pooled sensitivity of DECT for detecting BME in knee, hip, and ankle joint injuries was 0.80, 0.84, and 0.80, with no significant difference among these joints (P = 0.55). The pooled specificity for knee, hip, and ankle injuries was 0.95, 0.97, and 0.89. Specificity differed significantly among the joints (P < 0.01), with the highest specificity in hip injuries.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis indicates that DECT demonstrates high diagnostic performance in detecting BME in patients with lower limb joint injuries, with the highest specificity observed in hip joint injuries. To validate these findings, further larger prospective studies are necessary.

查看原文本刊更多论文

双能 CT 检测下肢关节损伤骨髓水肿的诊断性能：荟萃分析

目的我们旨在评估双能计算机断层扫描（DECT）在检测下肢关节损伤患者骨髓水肿（BME）方面的诊断性能。方法我们在PubMed、Embase和Web of Science数据库中进行了全面的文献检索，以确定截至2024年4月的相关研究。纳入的研究考察了 DECT 检测下肢关节损伤患者 BME 的诊断性能。采用逆方差法评估灵敏度和特异性，并通过 Freeman-Tukey 双弧线变换进行转换。此外，还使用了诊断准确性研究质量评估-2（QUADAS-2）工具来评估纳入研究的方法学质量。DECT检测下肢关节损伤患者BME的汇总灵敏度、特异性和AUC分别为0.82（95 % CI：0.76-0.87）、0.95（95 % CI：0.92-0.97）和0.95（95 % CI：0.93-0.97）。DECT检测膝关节、髋关节和踝关节损伤BME的汇总灵敏度分别为0.80、0.84和0.80，各关节之间无显著差异（P = 0.55）。膝关节、髋关节和踝关节损伤的集合特异性分别为0.95、0.97和0.89。结论我们的荟萃分析表明，DECT在检测下肢关节损伤患者的BME方面具有很高的诊断性能，其中髋关节损伤的特异性最高。为了验证这些发现，有必要进一步开展更大规模的前瞻性研究。

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Imaging 医学-核医学

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量

265

审稿时长

35 days

期刊介绍： The mission of Clinical Imaging is to publish, in a timely manner, the very best radiology research from the United States and around the world with special attention to the impact of medical imaging on patient care. The journal''s publications cover all imaging modalities, radiology issues related to patients, policy and practice improvements, and clinically-oriented imaging physics and informatics. The journal is a valuable resource for practicing radiologists, radiologists-in-training and other clinicians with an interest in imaging. Papers are carefully peer-reviewed and selected by our experienced subject editors who are leading experts spanning the range of imaging sub-specialties, which include: -Body Imaging- Breast Imaging- Cardiothoracic Imaging- Imaging Physics and Informatics- Molecular Imaging and Nuclear Medicine- Musculoskeletal and Emergency Imaging- Neuroradiology- Practice, Policy & Education- Pediatric Imaging- Vascular and Interventional Radiology