4.1 Article

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Diagnosis of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Meta-Analysis

Journal

CANADIAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 2018, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2018/7457369

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is an effective technique for the diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis (CS). The efficacy of CMR versus the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare (JMHW) guidelines considered as standard criterion for the diagnosis of CS remains to be elucidated. Methods. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed at assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CMR in cardiac sarcoidosis. We searched on PubMed from January 1, 1980, to March 28, 2018, on Embase from January 1, 1980, to March 29, 2018, and on the Cochrane Library from January 1, 1980, to April 1, 2018, using a strategy based on the search terms (sarcoidosis and magnetic resonance imaging) independently. We analyzed the data obtained with Revman 5.3 and Stata 14.0 software. Results. Eight studies with a total of 649 participants met the inclusion criteria, and data were extracted. CMR had an overall sensitivity of 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.87-0.97) and specificity of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.68-0.94) for the diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.93-0.97). The subgroup analysis via public year showed that studies between 2011 and 2017 had an overall sensitivity of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.88-0.98) and specificity of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.49-0.99), with an area under the SROC curve being 0.96. Conclusions. The results of this meta-analysis suggest that CMR could be used for the diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis and screening of patients suspected of CS. With the improvement of the technique, the diagnostic accuracy of MRI has improved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available