Tao Liu1, Shenghao Wang1, Hao Liu1, Bin Meng1, Feng Zhou1, Fan He2, Xiaojian Shi3, Huilin Yang4,5. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, 215006, Jiangsu, China. 2. Orthopaedic Institute, Medical College, Soochow University, Suzhou, China. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haimen People's Hospital, Haimen, China. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, 215006, Jiangsu, China. szyhlspine@163.com. 5. Orthopaedic Institute, Medical College, Soochow University, Suzhou, China. szyhlspine@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), bone scintigraphy (BS) and BS with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in detecting vertebral metastases. METHODS: Relevant original articles published from January 1995 to December 2015 were searched. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Software called "META-DiSc" was used to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles consisting of 33 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria. On per-patient basis, for sensitivity, MRI = PET = SPECT > CT = BS ("=" indicated no significant difference, P > 0.05; ">" indicated significantly higher, P < 0.05). For specificity, MRI = CT = BS > SPECT > PET. For DOR, MRI > SPECT > BS > CT = PET. SROC curves for SPECT and MRI showed better diagnostic accuracy than others. On per-lesion basis, for sensitivity, PET = SPECT = MRI > BS > CT. For specificity, MRI = CT > PET = SPECT = BS. For DOR, MRI > SPECT > CT = PET > BS. SROC curves showed MRI had the best while CT had the lowest diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: For diagnosis of vertebral metastases, MRI was found to be the best modality and also better than other techniques on both per-patient and per-lesion basis.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), bone scintigraphy (BS) and BS with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in detecting vertebral metastases. METHODS: Relevant original articles published from January 1995 to December 2015 were searched. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Software called "META-DiSc" was used to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles consisting of 33 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria. On per-patient basis, for sensitivity, MRI = PET = SPECT > CT = BS ("=" indicated no significant difference, P > 0.05; ">" indicated significantly higher, P < 0.05). For specificity, MRI = CT = BS > SPECT > PET. For DOR, MRI > SPECT > BS > CT = PET. SROC curves for SPECT and MRI showed better diagnostic accuracy than others. On per-lesion basis, for sensitivity, PET = SPECT = MRI > BS > CT. For specificity, MRI = CT > PET = SPECT = BS. For DOR, MRI > SPECT > CT = PET > BS. SROC curves showed MRI had the best while CT had the lowest diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: For diagnosis of vertebral metastases, MRI was found to be the best modality and also better than other techniques on both per-patient and per-lesion basis.
Authors: K M Jones; R B Schwartz; M T Mantello; S S Ahn; R Khorasani; S Mukherji; K Oshio; R V Mulkern Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Fernando Ruiz Santiago; Antonio Jesús Láinez Ramos-Bossini; Yì Xiáng J Wáng; José Pablo Martínez Barbero; Jade García Espinosa; Alberto Martínez Martínez Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2022-07
Authors: Roberta Piva; Flavia Ticconi; Valentina Ceriani; Federica Scalorbi; Francesco Fiz; Selene Capitanio; Matteo Bauckneht; Giuseppe Cittadini; Gianmario Sambuceti; Silvia Morbelli Journal: Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) Date: 2017-07-04
Authors: Yurday Ozdemir; Nese Torun; Ozan Cem Guler; Berna Akkus Yildirim; Ali A Besen; Aylin Gunesli Yetisken; H Cem Onal; Erkan Topkan Journal: J Bone Oncol Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 4.072
Authors: Sofie De Vuysere; Vincent Vandecaveye; Yves De Bruecker; Saskia Carton; Koen Vermeiren; Tim Tollens; Frederik De Keyzer; Raphaëla Carmen Dresen Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Nicolas Serratrice; Joe Faddoul; Bilal Tarabay; Christian Attieh; Moussa A Chalah; Samar S Ayache; Georges N Abi Lahoud Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Giuseppe Petralia; Fabio Zugni; Paul E Summers; Alberto Colombo; Paola Pricolo; Luigi Grazioli; Stefano Colagrande; Andrea Giovagnoni; Anwar R Padhani Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 3.469