Chong Hyun Suh1, Seong Jong Yun2,3, Wook Jin4, Sun Hwa Lee5, So Young Park4, Chang-Woo Ryu4. 1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, 892 Dongnam-ro, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, 05278, Republic of Korea. zoomknight@naver.com. 3. Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. zoomknight@naver.com. 4. Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, 892 Dongnam-ro, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, 05278, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, 1342 Dongil-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 01757, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of dual-energy CT (DECT) for the detection of bone marrow oedema (BME). METHODS: An electronic search of the PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted. Bivariate modelling and hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic modelling were performed to evaluate the overall diagnostic performance of DECT for BME. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the assessment type (qualitative vs. quantitative) and anatomical location (spine vs. appendicular skeleton). Meta-regression analyses were performed according to the subject, study, and DECT characteristics. RESULTS: Twelve eligible studies (1901 lesions, 450 patients) were included. DECT exhibited a pooled sensitivity of 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-0.90] and a pooled specificity of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92-0.98) for BME detection. In addition, the diagnostic performance of qualitative assessment (sensitivity, 0.85; specificity, 0.97) was higher than that of quantitative assessment (sensitivity, 0.84; specificity, 0.88) of DECT findings. The diagnostic performance of DECT for the spine (sensitivity, 0.84; specificity, 0.98) and appendicular skeleton (sensitivity, 0.84; specificity, 0.93) were excellent. According to meta-regression analysis, the use of a tin filter, ≥ 2 image planes, and a slice thickness < 1 mm tended to exhibit higher sensitivity and hyperacute stage BME (< 24 h) tended to exhibit lower sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that DECT has excellent sensitivity and specificity for BME detection. Qualitative assessment of DECT findings obtained using a tin filter, ≥ 2 image planes, and a 0.5-1-mm slice thickness in the acute stage BME (≥24 h) is recommended for more sensitive diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • Overall, DECT is useful for the detection of BME (sensitivity, 85%; specificity-97%). • Qualitative assessment (sensitivity-85%; specificity-97%) is more accurate than quantitative assessment (sensitivity-84%; specificity-88%). • DECT showed excellent diagnostic performance for both the spine/appendicular skeleton (sensitivity-84%/84%; specificity-98%/93%).
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of dual-energy CT (DECT) for the detection of bone marrow oedema (BME). METHODS: An electronic search of the PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted. Bivariate modelling and hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic modelling were performed to evaluate the overall diagnostic performance of DECT for BME. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the assessment type (qualitative vs. quantitative) and anatomical location (spine vs. appendicular skeleton). Meta-regression analyses were performed according to the subject, study, and DECT characteristics. RESULTS: Twelve eligible studies (1901 lesions, 450 patients) were included. DECT exhibited a pooled sensitivity of 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-0.90] and a pooled specificity of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92-0.98) for BME detection. In addition, the diagnostic performance of qualitative assessment (sensitivity, 0.85; specificity, 0.97) was higher than that of quantitative assessment (sensitivity, 0.84; specificity, 0.88) of DECT findings. The diagnostic performance of DECT for the spine (sensitivity, 0.84; specificity, 0.98) and appendicular skeleton (sensitivity, 0.84; specificity, 0.93) were excellent. According to meta-regression analysis, the use of a tin filter, ≥ 2 image planes, and a slice thickness < 1 mm tended to exhibit higher sensitivity and hyperacute stage BME (< 24 h) tended to exhibit lower sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that DECT has excellent sensitivity and specificity for BME detection. Qualitative assessment of DECT findings obtained using a tin filter, ≥ 2 image planes, and a 0.5-1-mm slice thickness in the acute stage BME (≥24 h) is recommended for more sensitive diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • Overall, DECT is useful for the detection of BME (sensitivity, 85%; specificity-97%). • Qualitative assessment (sensitivity-85%; specificity-97%) is more accurate than quantitative assessment (sensitivity-84%; specificity-88%). • DECT showed excellent diagnostic performance for both the spine/appendicular skeleton (sensitivity-84%/84%; specificity-98%/93%).
Authors: Simone S Boks; Dammis Vroegindeweij; Bart W Koes; M G Myriam Hunink; Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gregor Pache; Bernhard Krauss; Peter Strohm; Ulrich Saueressig; Philipp Blanke; Stefan Bulla; Oliver Schäfer; Peter Helwig; Elmar Kotter; Mathias Langer; Tobias Baumann Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-06-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Giovanni Foti; Matteo Catania; Simone Caia; Luigi Romano; Alberto Beltramello; Claudio Zorzi; Giovanni Carbognin Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Francis I Baffour; Katrina N Glazebrook; Jonathan M Morris; Gregory J Michalak; Joel G Fletcher; Shuai Leng; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Torsten Diekhoff; Nils Engelhard; Michael Fuchs; Matthias Pumberger; Michael Putzier; Jürgen Mews; Marcus Makowski; Bernd Hamm; Kay-Geert A Hermann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Giovanni Foti; William Mantovani; Niccolò Faccioli; Giacomo Crivellari; Luigi Romano; Claudio Zorzi; Giovanni Carbognin Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: N Engelhard; K G Hermann; J Greese; M Fuchs; M Pumberger; M Putzier; T Diekhoff Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Christoph Stern; Dimitri N Graf; Samy Bouaicha; Karl Wieser; Andrea B Rosskopf; Reto Sutter Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 2.128