Diagnosing Cerebrospinal Fluid Shunt Failure: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Noninvasive and Minimally Invasive Tests in Children and Adults.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Jenna E Koschnitzky, Maxwell E Shramuk, Margaret V Kudlinski, Jacob M Schauer, Adam M Zysk, Gerald A Grant
{"title":"Diagnosing Cerebrospinal Fluid Shunt Failure: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Noninvasive and Minimally Invasive Tests in Children and Adults.","authors":"Jenna E Koschnitzky, Maxwell E Shramuk, Margaret V Kudlinski, Jacob M Schauer, Adam M Zysk, Gerald A Grant","doi":"10.1227/neu.0000000000003755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The goal of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of noninvasive and minimally invasive tools for the diagnosis of shunt failure in pediatric and adult patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eligible studies included patients with permanent cerebrospinal fluid shunt systems who underwent diagnostic testing (X-ray shunt series, computed tomography [CT], MRI, nuclear scintigraphy, or thermal flow evaluation) for possible shunt failure. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted (PROSPERO registration number CRD42024596142). Performance measures (accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity) were analyzed using a meta-regression model. The model incorporated index test type, age group, follow-up time frame, and shunt type. Odds ratios were calculated for each level of the analyzed variables. A bias assessment of each study was conducted using Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative, when applicable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 465 articles were reviewed (PubMed search October 22, 2024) with 33 included in the final analysis. There was a significant effect of index test type on sensitivity (P = .013). In the subgroup analysis, X-ray shunt series performed worse than CT (reference group) (odds ratio 0.106, 95% CI [0.056-0.201]). There was no overall effect of index test type on specificity (P = .192), but, in the subgroup analysis, X-ray shunt series performed better than CT (odds ratio 4.04, 95% CI [1.938-8.424]). There were no significant effects of age group, follow-up time frame, or shunt type on any of the performance measures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This is the largest systematic review and meta-analysis conducted to date to analyze the performance of minimally invasive tools to diagnose shunt failure. None of the tests performed well enough to be considered a stand-alone test for the diagnosis of shunt failure, and only X-ray shunt series performed significantly different than CT. Limitations include the high risk of bias in the reference standard domain for most studies as identified using Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2.</p>","PeriodicalId":19276,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000003755","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: The goal of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of noninvasive and minimally invasive tools for the diagnosis of shunt failure in pediatric and adult patients.

Methods: Eligible studies included patients with permanent cerebrospinal fluid shunt systems who underwent diagnostic testing (X-ray shunt series, computed tomography [CT], MRI, nuclear scintigraphy, or thermal flow evaluation) for possible shunt failure. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted (PROSPERO registration number CRD42024596142). Performance measures (accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity) were analyzed using a meta-regression model. The model incorporated index test type, age group, follow-up time frame, and shunt type. Odds ratios were calculated for each level of the analyzed variables. A bias assessment of each study was conducted using Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative, when applicable.

Results: In total, 465 articles were reviewed (PubMed search October 22, 2024) with 33 included in the final analysis. There was a significant effect of index test type on sensitivity (P = .013). In the subgroup analysis, X-ray shunt series performed worse than CT (reference group) (odds ratio 0.106, 95% CI [0.056-0.201]). There was no overall effect of index test type on specificity (P = .192), but, in the subgroup analysis, X-ray shunt series performed better than CT (odds ratio 4.04, 95% CI [1.938-8.424]). There were no significant effects of age group, follow-up time frame, or shunt type on any of the performance measures.

Conclusion: This is the largest systematic review and meta-analysis conducted to date to analyze the performance of minimally invasive tools to diagnose shunt failure. None of the tests performed well enough to be considered a stand-alone test for the diagnosis of shunt failure, and only X-ray shunt series performed significantly different than CT. Limitations include the high risk of bias in the reference standard domain for most studies as identified using Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2.

诊断脑脊液分流失败:儿童和成人无创和微创试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景和目的:本研究的目的是评估无创和微创工具诊断儿童和成人患者分流失败的诊断性能。方法:符合条件的研究包括永久性脑脊液分流系统患者,他们接受了诊断测试(x线分流系列,计算机断层扫描[CT], MRI,核闪烁成像或热流评估),以确定可能的分流失败。进行了系统评价和荟萃分析(PROSPERO注册号CRD42024596142)。使用元回归模型分析性能指标(准确性、敏感性和特异性)。模型包括指标测试类型、年龄组、随访时间、分流类型。对分析变量的每个水平计算优势比。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估工具-2和诊断准确性研究质量评估工具-比较(如适用)对每项研究进行偏倚评估。结果:共审查了465篇文章(2024年10月22日PubMed检索),其中33篇纳入最终分析。指标试验类型对敏感性有显著影响(P = 0.013)。在亚组分析中,x线分流组的表现差于CT(对照组)(优势比0.106,95% CI[0.056-0.201])。指标试验类型对特异性没有总体影响(P = 0.192),但在亚组分析中,x线分流系列优于CT(优势比4.04,95% CI[1.938-8.424])。年龄组、随访时间框架或分流类型对任何性能测量均无显著影响。结论:这是迄今为止进行的最大的系统综述和荟萃分析,旨在分析微创工具诊断分流失败的性能。没有一项测试的表现足以被认为是诊断分流器故障的独立测试,只有x线分流器系列的表现与CT有显著差异。局限性包括使用诊断准确性研究质量评估工具确定的大多数研究在参考标准领域存在高偏倚风险-2。
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
Neurosurgery
Neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
898
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurosurgery, the official journal of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, publishes research on clinical and experimental neurosurgery covering the very latest developments in science, technology, and medicine. For professionals aware of the rapid pace of developments in the field, this journal is nothing short of indispensable as the most complete window on the contemporary field of neurosurgery. Neurosurgery is the fastest-growing journal in the field, with a worldwide reputation for reliable coverage delivered with a fresh and dynamic outlook.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信