Maria Tækker1, Björg Kristjánsdóttir2, Ole Graumann3, Christian B Laursen4, Pia I Pietersen5. 1. Research and Innovation Unit of Radiology, University of Southern Denmark, Kloevervaenget 10, entrance 112, 2nd floor, 5000 Odense C, Denmark; Department of Radiology, Odense University Hospital, Kloevervaenget 47, 5000 Odense C, Denmark. Electronic address: mariataek@gmail.com. 2. Research and Innovation Unit of Radiology, University of Southern Denmark, Kloevervaenget 10, entrance 112, 2nd floor, 5000 Odense C, Denmark; Department of Radiology, Odense University Hospital, Kloevervaenget 47, 5000 Odense C, Denmark. Electronic address: bjorgmeik@gmail.com. 3. Research and Innovation Unit of Radiology, University of Southern Denmark, Kloevervaenget 10, entrance 112, 2nd floor, 5000 Odense C, Denmark; Department of Radiology, Odense University Hospital, Kloevervaenget 47, 5000 Odense C, Denmark. Electronic address: Ole.Graumann@rsyd.dk. 4. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Kloevervaenget 2, entrance 87-88, 5000 Odense C, Denmark; Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Science, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense, Denmark. Electronic address: Christian.B.Laursen@rsyd.dk. 5. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Kloevervaenget 2, entrance 87-88, 5000 Odense C, Denmark; Regional Center for Technical Simulation, Odense University Hospital, Region of Southern Denmark, J. B. Winsløws Vej 4, 5000 Odense C, Denmark. Electronic address: Pia.Iben.Pietersen3@rsyd.dk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Studies have evaluated imaging modalities with a lower radiation dose than standard-dose CT (SD-CT) for chest examination. This systematic review aimed to summarize evidence on diagnostic accuracy of these modalities - low-dose and ultra-low-dose CT (LD- and ULD-CT) - for chest pathology. METHOD: Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched April 29th-30th, 2019 and screened by two reviewers. Studies on diagnostic accuracy were included if they defined their index tests as 'LD-CT', 'Reduced-dose CT' or 'ULD-CT' and had SD-CT as reference standard. Risk of bias was evaluated on study level using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. A narrative synthesis was conducted to compare the diagnostic accuracy measurements. RESULTS: Of the 4257 studies identified, 18 were eligible for inclusion. SD-CT (3.17 ± 1.47 mSv) was used as reference standard in all studies to evaluate diagnostic accuracy of LD- (1.22 ± 0.34 mSv) and ULD-CT (0.22 ± 0.05 mSv), respectively. LD-CT had high sensitivities for detection of bronchiectasis (82-96%), honeycomb (75-100%), and varying sensitivities for nodules (63-99%) and ground glass opacities (GGO) (77-91%). ULD-CT had high sensitivities for GGO (93-100%), pneumothorax (100%), consolidations (90-100%), and varying sensitivities for nodules (60-100%) and emphysema (65-90%). CONCLUSION: The included studies found LD-CT to have high diagnostic accuracy in detection of honeycombing and bronchiectasis and ULD-CT to have high diagnostic accuracy for pneumothorax, consolidations and GGO. Summarizing evidence on diagnostic accuracy of LD- and ULD-CT for other chest pathology was not possible due to varying outcome measures, lack of precision estimates and heterogeneous study design and methodology.
PURPOSE: Studies have evaluated imaging modalities with a lower radiation dose than standard-dose CT (SD-CT) for chest examination. This systematic review aimed to summarize evidence on diagnostic accuracy of these modalities - low-dose and ultra-low-dose CT (LD- and ULD-CT) - for chest pathology. METHOD: Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched April 29th-30th, 2019 and screened by two reviewers. Studies on diagnostic accuracy were included if they defined their index tests as 'LD-CT', 'Reduced-dose CT' or 'ULD-CT' and had SD-CT as reference standard. Risk of bias was evaluated on study level using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. A narrative synthesis was conducted to compare the diagnostic accuracy measurements. RESULTS: Of the 4257 studies identified, 18 were eligible for inclusion. SD-CT (3.17 ± 1.47 mSv) was used as reference standard in all studies to evaluate diagnostic accuracy of LD- (1.22 ± 0.34 mSv) and ULD-CT (0.22 ± 0.05 mSv), respectively. LD-CT had high sensitivities for detection of bronchiectasis (82-96%), honeycomb (75-100%), and varying sensitivities for nodules (63-99%) and ground glass opacities (GGO) (77-91%). ULD-CT had high sensitivities for GGO (93-100%), pneumothorax (100%), consolidations (90-100%), and varying sensitivities for nodules (60-100%) and emphysema (65-90%). CONCLUSION: The included studies found LD-CT to have high diagnostic accuracy in detection of honeycombing and bronchiectasis and ULD-CT to have high diagnostic accuracy for pneumothorax, consolidations and GGO. Summarizing evidence on diagnostic accuracy of LD- and ULD-CT for other chest pathology was not possible due to varying outcome measures, lack of precision estimates and heterogeneous study design and methodology.
Authors: Florian Hagen; Lukas Walder; Jan Fritz; Ralf Gutjahr; Bernhard Schmidt; Sebastian Faby; Fabian Bamberg; Stefan Schoenberg; Konstantin Nikolaou; Marius Horger Journal: Tomography Date: 2022-06-03
Authors: Björg Kristjánsdóttir; Maria Taekker; Michael B Andersen; Lasse P Bentsen; Mikkel H Berntsen; Jan Dahlin; Maja L Fransen; Kristina Gosvig; Pernille W Greisen; Christian B Laursen; Bo Mussmann; Stefan Posth; Claus-Henrik Rasmussen; Hannes Sjölander; Ole Graumann Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 1.817