AIM: Functional nuclear medicine imaging techniques have become particularly important in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis. The aim of our study was to perform a meta-analysis to obtain a reliable estimate of the diagnostic performance of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), three-phase bone scintigraphy, leukocyte scintigraphy, and monoclonal antigranulocyte antibody (MOAB) scintigraphy in the assessment of suspected osteomyelitis and to perform pairwise comparisons of the diagnostic accuracy between these different imaging modalities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 23 studies representing 851 examinations that were published from January 1980 to October 2010 were reviewed. These studies evaluated the role of FDG-PET, three-phase bone scintigraphy, leukocyte scintigraphy, and MOAB scintigraphy in the assessment of suspected osteomyelitis. Systematic methods were used to identify, select, and evaluate the methodological quality of the studies and to summarize the overall findings of sensitivity and specificity. Two-sample Z-tests were conducted to evaluate for differences in sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and the Q* index between any two diagnostic modalities. RESULTS: The FDG-PET had a pooled sensitivity of 0.923, specificity of 0.920, and AUC of 0.9666, whereas for bone scintigraphy, the corresponding values were 0.827, 0.446, and 0.6514, respectively, for leukocyte scintigraphy, the corresponding values were 0.742, 0.881, and 0.9139, respectively, and for MOAB, the corresponding values were 0.883, 0.705, and 0.8897, respectively. Our meta-analysis did not find statistically significant differences in the sensitivity, specificity, AUC, and Q* index between FDG-PET and leukocyte scintigraphy. CONCLUSION: Leukocyte scintigraphy can be used with satisfactory diagnostic accuracy for detecting osteomyelitis when positron emission tomography systems are not available. The FDG-PET appears to be superior in terms of accuracy compared with other radionuclide imaging modalities.
AIM: Functional nuclear medicine imaging techniques have become particularly important in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis. The aim of our study was to perform a meta-analysis to obtain a reliable estimate of the diagnostic performance of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), three-phase bone scintigraphy, leukocyte scintigraphy, and monoclonal antigranulocyte antibody (MOAB) scintigraphy in the assessment of suspected osteomyelitis and to perform pairwise comparisons of the diagnostic accuracy between these different imaging modalities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 23 studies representing 851 examinations that were published from January 1980 to October 2010 were reviewed. These studies evaluated the role of FDG-PET, three-phase bone scintigraphy, leukocyte scintigraphy, and MOAB scintigraphy in the assessment of suspected osteomyelitis. Systematic methods were used to identify, select, and evaluate the methodological quality of the studies and to summarize the overall findings of sensitivity and specificity. Two-sample Z-tests were conducted to evaluate for differences in sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and the Q* index between any two diagnostic modalities. RESULTS: The FDG-PET had a pooled sensitivity of 0.923, specificity of 0.920, and AUC of 0.9666, whereas for bone scintigraphy, the corresponding values were 0.827, 0.446, and 0.6514, respectively, for leukocyte scintigraphy, the corresponding values were 0.742, 0.881, and 0.9139, respectively, and for MOAB, the corresponding values were 0.883, 0.705, and 0.8897, respectively. Our meta-analysis did not find statistically significant differences in the sensitivity, specificity, AUC, and Q* index between FDG-PET and leukocyte scintigraphy. CONCLUSION: Leukocyte scintigraphy can be used with satisfactory diagnostic accuracy for detecting osteomyelitis when positron emission tomography systems are not available. The FDG-PET appears to be superior in terms of accuracy compared with other radionuclide imaging modalities.
Authors: Vera Wenter; Jan-Phillip Müller; Nathalie L Albert; Sebastian Lehner; Wolfgang P Fendler; Peter Bartenstein; Clemens C Cyran; Jan Friederichs; Matthias Militz; Marcus Hacker; Sven Hungerer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-11-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Luca Maria Sconfienza; Alberto Signore; Victor Cassar-Pullicino; Maria Adriana Cataldo; Olivier Gheysens; Olivier Borens; Andrej Trampuz; Klaus Wörtler; Nicola Petrosillo; Heinz Winkler; Filip M H M Vanhoenacker; Paul C Jutte; Andor W J M Glaudemans Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christopher Palestro; Alicia Clark; Erin Grady; Sherif Heiba; Ora Israel; Alan Klitzke; Charito Love; Mike Sathekge; S Ted Treves; Tracy L Yarbrough Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Andor W J M Glaudemans; Erik F J de Vries; Filippo Galli; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Riemer H J A Slart; Alberto Signore Journal: Clin Dev Immunol Date: 2013-08-21
Authors: Geertje A Govaert; Frank F IJpma; Martin McNally; Eugene McNally; Inge H Reininga; Andor W Glaudemans Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: W Annefloor van Enst; Eleanor Ochodo; Rob J P M Scholten; Lotty Hooft; Mariska M Leeflang Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 4.615