G Abdalla1, R Fawzi Matuk1, V Venugopal2, F Verde3, T H Magnuson1, M A Schweitzer1, K E Steele4. 1. Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 4940 Eastern Avenue Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. 2. The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 4940 Eastern Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 4940 Eastern Avenue Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. Electronic address: ksteele3@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
AIM: To search the literature for further evidence for the use of magnetic resonance venography (MRV) in the detection of suspected DVT and to re-evaluate the accuracy of MRV in the detection of suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched. Study quality and the risk of bias were evaluated using the QUADAS 2. A random effects meta-analysis including subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The search resulted in 23 observational studies all from academic centres. Sixteen articles were included in the meta-analysis. The summary estimates for MRV as a diagnostic non-invasive tool revealed a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 89% to 95%) and specificity of 96% (95% CI: 94% to 97%). The heterogeneity of the studies was high. Inconsistency (I2) for sensitivity and specificity was 80.7% and 77.9%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Further studies investigating the use of MRV in the detection of suspected DVT did not offer further evidence to support the replacement of ultrasound with MRV as the first-line investigation. However, MRV may offer an alternative tool in the detection/diagnosis of DVT for whom ultrasound is inadequate or not feasible (such as in the obese patient).
AIM: To search the literature for further evidence for the use of magnetic resonance venography (MRV) in the detection of suspected DVT and to re-evaluate the accuracy of MRV in the detection of suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched. Study quality and the risk of bias were evaluated using the QUADAS 2. A random effects meta-analysis including subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The search resulted in 23 observational studies all from academic centres. Sixteen articles were included in the meta-analysis. The summary estimates for MRV as a diagnostic non-invasive tool revealed a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 89% to 95%) and specificity of 96% (95% CI: 94% to 97%). The heterogeneity of the studies was high. Inconsistency (I2) for sensitivity and specificity was 80.7% and 77.9%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Further studies investigating the use of MRV in the detection of suspected DVT did not offer further evidence to support the replacement of ultrasound with MRV as the first-line investigation. However, MRV may offer an alternative tool in the detection/diagnosis of DVT for whom ultrasound is inadequate or not feasible (such as in the obesepatient).
Authors: Justinas Silickas; Stephen A Black; Alkystis Phinikaridou; Adam M Gwozdz; Alberto Smith; Prakash Saha Journal: Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J Date: 2018 Jul-Sep
Authors: Gregory Piazza; Venkatesh Mani; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Michael A Grosso; Michele Mercuri; Hans J Lanz; Steven Schussler; Ching Hsu; Amy Chinigo; Bruce Ritchie; Venkatesh Nadar; Kevin Cannon; John Pullman; Mauricio Concha; Marlin Schul; Zahi A Fayad Journal: Vasc Med Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 3.239
Authors: Ashkan H Behzadi; Neil M Khilnani; Weiguo Zhang; Amanda J Bares; Srikanth R Boddu; Robert J Min; Martin R Prince Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 5.364