Zhange Yu1, Tianli Mao2, Yaping Xu2, Tengqi Li2, Yanhua Wang3, Fuqiang Gao4,5, Wei Sun6,7. 1. Department of Acupuncture, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, 100029, China. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, 100029, China. 3. Department of Trauma and Orthopedics, Peking University People's Hospital, South Xizhimen Street No. 11, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100044, China. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, 100029, China. gaofuqiang0604@163.com. 5. Department of Orthopedics, China-Japan Friendship Institute of Clinical Medicine, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100029, China. gaofuqiang0604@163.com. 6. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, 100029, China. 18901267995@163.com. 7. Department of Orthopedics, China-Japan Friendship Institute of Clinical Medicine, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100029, China. 18901267995@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Dual-energy CT (DECT) is being widely used in suspected gout patients in recent years. Many clinicians tend to use DECT instead of aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis of gout, but its accuracy has shown controversial results. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to evaluate the accuracy of DECT in the diagnosis of gout. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature published in Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases. Studies included are all clinical trials of DECT in the diagnosis of gout. Quality assessment of bias and applicability was conducted using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). We recorded sensitivity and specificity of algorithms and calculated positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and diagnostic odd ratio (DOR), and respective confidence intervals (CI). The summary receiver operating characteristic curve (sROC) was drawn to get the Cochran Q-index and the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Seven studies were included in this review and showed high homogeneity. The analysis results presented the pooled sensitivity was 88% (95% CI 84-90%) and specificity was 90% (95% CI 85-93%). Then, we figured out that the pooled PLR was 8.48 (95% CI 5.89-12.22) and NLR was 0.10 (95% CI 0.04-0.24) respectively. In addition, Cochran-Q was 0.90 and AUC was 0.9565 in sROC curve. CONCLUSIONS: DECT showed relatively high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of gout. Synthetically considering these DECT abnormalities could improve the diagnostic sensitivity. More rigorous and standardized studies are still needed to support these findings.
OBJECTIVE: Dual-energy CT (DECT) is being widely used in suspected goutpatients in recent years. Many clinicians tend to use DECT instead of aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis of gout, but its accuracy has shown controversial results. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to evaluate the accuracy of DECT in the diagnosis of gout. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature published in Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases. Studies included are all clinical trials of DECT in the diagnosis of gout. Quality assessment of bias and applicability was conducted using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). We recorded sensitivity and specificity of algorithms and calculated positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and diagnostic odd ratio (DOR), and respective confidence intervals (CI). The summary receiver operating characteristic curve (sROC) was drawn to get the Cochran Q-index and the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Seven studies were included in this review and showed high homogeneity. The analysis results presented the pooled sensitivity was 88% (95% CI 84-90%) and specificity was 90% (95% CI 85-93%). Then, we figured out that the pooled PLR was 8.48 (95% CI 5.89-12.22) and NLR was 0.10 (95% CI 0.04-0.24) respectively. In addition, Cochran-Q was 0.90 and AUC was 0.9565 in sROC curve. CONCLUSIONS: DECT showed relatively high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of gout. Synthetically considering these DECT abnormalities could improve the diagnostic sensitivity. More rigorous and standardized studies are still needed to support these findings.
Authors: Courtney A Coursey; Rendon C Nelson; Daniel T Boll; Erik K Paulson; Lisa M Ho; Amy M Neville; Daniele Marin; Rajan T Gupta; Sebastian T Schindera Journal: Radiographics Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Sarah C Metzger; Michaela Koehm; Julian L Wichmann; Stefan Buettner; Jan-Erik Scholtz; Martin Beeres; J Matthias Kerl; Moritz H Albrecht; Renate Hammerstingl; Thomas J Vogl; Ralf W Bauer Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 3.173
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: Sydne J Newberry; John D FitzGerald; Aneesa Motala; Marika Booth; Margaret A Maglione; Dan Han; Abdul Tariq; Claire E O'Hanlon; Roberta Shanman; Whitney Dudley; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Tim Bongartz; Katrina N Glazebrook; Steven J Kavros; Naveen S Murthy; Stephen P Merry; Walter B Franz; Clement J Michet; Barath M Akkara Veetil; John M Davis; Thomas G Mason; Kenneth J Warrington; Steven R Ytterberg; Eric L Matteson; Cynthia S Crowson; Shuai Leng; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Matthias Pumberger; Michael Fuchs; Nils Engelhard; Kay Geert Hermann; Michael Putzier; Marcus R Makowski; Bernd Hamm; Torsten Diekhoff Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 5.315