Literature DB >> 29154402

Transvaginal ultrasound vs magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing deep infiltrating endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

S Guerriero1, L Saba2, M A Pascual3, S Ajossa1, I Rodriguez3, V Mais1, J L Alcazar4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of studies comparing the accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosing deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) including only studies in which patients underwent both techniques.
METHODS: An extensive search was carried out in PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science for papers from January 1989 to October 2016 comparing TVS and MRI in DIE. Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported on the use of TVS and MRI in the same set of patients for the preoperative detection of endometriosis in pelvic locations in women with clinical suspicion of DIE and using surgical data as a reference standard. Quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. A random-effects model was used to determine pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR).
RESULTS: Of 375 citations identified, six studies (n = 424) were considered eligible. For MRI in the detection of DIE in the rectosigmoid, pooled sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90), specificity was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.83-0.99), LR+ was 18.4 (95% CI, 4.7-72.4), LR- was 0.16 (95% CI, 0.11-0.24) and DOR was 116 (95% CI, 23-585). For TVS in the detection of DIE in the rectosigmoid, pooled sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.68-0.94), specificity was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.85-0.99), LR+ was 20.4 (95% CI, 4.7-88.5), LR- was 0.16 (95% CI, 0.07-0.38) and DOR was 127 (95% CI, 14-1126). For MRI in the detection of DIE in the rectovaginal septum, pooled sensitivity was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.51-0.79), specificity was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99), LR+ was 22.5 (95% CI, 6.7-76.2), LR- was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.23-0.52) and DOR was 65 (95% CI, 21-204). For TVS in the detection of DIE in the rectovaginal septum, pooled sensitivity was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.26-0.86), specificity was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.94-0.99), LR+ was 23.5 (95% CI, 9.1-60.5), LR- was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.18-0.97) and DOR was 56 (95% CI, 11-275). For MRI in the detection of DIE in the uterosacral ligaments, pooled sensitivity was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55-0.82), specificity was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-0.97), LR+ was 10.4 (95% CI, 5.1-21.2), LR- was 0.32 (95% CI, 0.20-0.51) and DOR was 32 (95% CI, 12-85). For TVS in the detection of DIE in the uterosacral ligaments, pooled sensitivity was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.55-0.77), specificity was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.73-0.93), LR+ was 4.8 (95% CI, 2.6-9.0), LR- was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.29-0.50) and DOR was 12 (95% CI, 7-24). Confidence intervals of pooled sensitivities, specificities and DOR were wide for both techniques in all the locations considered. Heterogeneity was moderate or high for sensitivity and specificity for both TVS and MRI in most locations assessed. According to QUADAS-2, the quality of the included studies was considered good for most domains.
CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of TVS and MRI is similar for detecting DIE involving rectosigmoid, uterosacral ligaments and rectovaginal septum.
Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MRI; TVS; deep infiltrating endometriosis; magnetic resonance imaging; transvaginal ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29154402     DOI: 10.1002/uog.18961

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  37 in total

1.  Rectal endometriosis: predictive MRI signs for segmental bowel resection.

Authors:  Pascal Rousset; Guillaume Buisson; Jean-Christophe Lega; Mathilde Charlot; Colin Gallice; Eddy Cotte; Laurent Milot; François Golfier
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Focused ultrasound for the diagnosis of non-palpable endometriotic lesions of the abdominal wall: a not-uncommon surgical complication.

Authors:  Giulio Cocco; V Ricci; A Boccatonda; C Schiavone
Journal:  J Ultrasound       Date:  2020-01-09

3.  Feasibility and safety of transvaginal specimen extraction in deep endometriosis colorectal resectional surgery and analysis of risk factors for postoperative complications.

Authors:  E Spagnolo; J Marí-Alexandre; S Di Saverio; J Gilabert-Estellés; C Agababyan; P Garcia-Casarrubios; A López; E González-Cantó; I Pascual; A Hernández
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2022-01-29       Impact factor: 3.781

4.  Anogenital Distance and Endometriosis: Results of a Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Laura Buggio; Edgardo Somigliana; Greta Sergenti; Federica Ottolini; Dhouha Dridi; Paolo Vercellini
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 2.924

5.  The Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Planning of Surgical Treatment of Deep Pelvic Endometriosis.

Authors:  Francesco Manti; Caterina Battaglia; Iennarella Bruno; Michele Ammendola; Giuseppe Navarra; Giuseppe Currò; Domenico Laganà
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-06-28

6.  Endometriosis and cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Benjamin Marchandot; Anais Curtiaud; Kensuke Matsushita; Antonin Trimaille; Aline Host; Emilie Faller; Olivier Garbin; Chérif Akladios; Laurence Jesel; Olivier Morel
Journal:  Eur Heart J Open       Date:  2022-02-02

7.  Role of Dienogest in Endometriosis in Young Women.

Authors:  Renuka Malik; Manmeet Kaur Mann
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2021-05-03

Review 8.  An Evidence-Based Review of Elagolix for the Treatment of Pain Secondary to Endometriosis.

Authors:  Ivan Urits; Leena Adamian; Paulo Miro; Jessica Callan; Parth M Patel; Megha Patel; Amnon A Berger; Hisham Kassem; Alan D Kaye; Omar Viswanath
Journal:  Psychopharmacol Bull       Date:  2020-10-15

9.  The Reproducibility of Ultrasonographic Findings of Rectosigmoid Endometriosis Among Examiners With Different Level of Expertise.

Authors:  Stefano Guerriero; MariaAngela Pascual; Silvia Ajossa; Manuela Neri; Monica Pilloni; Betlem Graupera; Ignacio Rodriguez; Juan Luis Alcazar
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2021-04-10       Impact factor: 2.754

Review 10.  Menstruation: science and society.

Authors:  Hilary O D Critchley; Elnur Babayev; Serdar E Bulun; Sandy Clark; Iolanda Garcia-Grau; Peter K Gregersen; Aoife Kilcoyne; Ji-Yong Julie Kim; Missy Lavender; Erica E Marsh; Kristen A Matteson; Jacqueline A Maybin; Christine N Metz; Inmaculada Moreno; Kami Silk; Marni Sommer; Carlos Simon; Ridhi Tariyal; Hugh S Taylor; Günter P Wagner; Linda G Griffith
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 10.693

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.