N N She1, X B Zhang1.
Abstract
Objective:To evaluate the values of magnetic resonance (MR) in the diagnosis of middle ear cholesteatoma by meta-analysis. Method:The articles concerning the diagnosis of middle ear cholesteatoma by using MRI until September 2017 were searched in databases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, CBM, VIP, Wan Fang Data and CNKI with the search term "cholesteatoma, MR, Magnetic Resonance". Two independent researchers screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of the bias of included studies with the inclusion and exclusion criteria using the QUADAS-2 tool. Then, meta-analysis was performed using Stata 12.0 software. The pooled weighted sensitivity and specificity were calculated, the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was drawn and the area under the curve was calculated. Result:A total of 21 original studies were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR and area under SROC curve of MR for diagnosing middle ear cholesteatoma were 0.88 (95%CI0.83 to 0.92), 0.91 (95%CI0.86 to 0.95), 10.13 (95%CI6.20 to 15.55), 0.13 (95%CI0.09 to 0.19), 79.23 (95%CI37.74 to 166.33), and 0.96 (95%CI0.93 to 0.97), respectively. The 1.5T MR has little differences with 1.5T MR in diagnosing middle ear cholesteatoma. In contrast to retrospective studies, prospective studies have further demonstrated that MR has a higher diagnostic value for middle ear cholesteatoma. Based on regions, the analysis showed that MR in Europe was more valuable in the diagnosis of middle ear cholesteatoma.
Conclusion: In the diagnosis of middle ear cholesteatoma, MR has a high value. Copyright© by the Editorial Department of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery.
Objective:To evaluate the values of magnetic resonance (MR) in the diagnosis of middle ear cholesteatoma by meta-analysis. Method:The articles concerning the diagnosis of middle ear cholesteatoma by using MRI until September 2017 were searched in databases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, CBM, VIP, Wan Fang Data and CNKI with the search term "cholesteatoma, MR, Magnetic Resonance". Two independent researchers screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of the bias of included studies with the inclusion and exclusion criteria using the QUADAS-2 tool. Then, meta-analysis was performed using Stata 12.0 software. The pooled weighted sensitivity and specificity were calculated, the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was drawn and the area under the curve was calculated. Result:A total of 21 original studies were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR and area under SROC curve of MR for diagnosing middle ear cholesteatoma were 0.88 (95%CI0.83 to 0.92), 0.91 (95%CI0.86 to 0.95), 10.13 (95%CI6.20 to 15.55), 0.13 (95%CI0.09 to 0.19), 79.23 (95%CI37.74 to 166.33), and 0.96 (95%CI0.93 to 0.97), respectively. The 1.5T MR has little differences with 1.5T MR in diagnosing middle ear cholesteatoma. In contrast to retrospective studies, prospective studies have further demonstrated that MR has a higher diagnostic value for middle ear cholesteatoma. Based on regions, the analysis showed that MR in Europe was more valuable in the diagnosis of middle ear cholesteatoma.
Conclusion: In the diagnosis of middle ear cholesteatoma, MR has a high value. Copyright© by the Editorial Department of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery.
Entities:
Keywords:
Meta-analysis; cholesteatoma; magnetic resonance
Mesh:
Year: 2017
PMID: 29798398 DOI: 10.13201/j.issn.1001-1781.2017.23.013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lin Chung Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi ISSN: 1001-1781