4.5 Article

Reliability and Validity of Different MRI Sequences in Improving the Accuracy of Differential Diagnosis of Benign and Malignant Vertebral Fractures: A Meta-Analysis

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
Volume 213, Issue 2, Pages 427-436

Publisher

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.20560

Keywords

benign vertebral fracture; diagnostic accuracy; malignant vertebral fracture; meta-analysis; MRI

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81701649]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE. We aimed to systematically examine the reliability and validity of different MRI sequences in differentiating benign and malignant vertebral fractures, appropriately select the best MRI sequence to improve the diagnostic accuracy, and compare the diagnostic accuracy of MRI sequences in the context of different study designs or publication date. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Computer and manual retrieval were conducted on studies published between January 1, 2000, and September 31, 2016. Studies relevant to the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant vertebral fractures by MRI and reference standard (histopathologic diagnosis or clinical follow-up examination) were analyzed. RESULTS. Eighteen articles were included. Neither threshold (p = 0.86) nor nonthreshold (p = 0.06) effects were present. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 89% (95% CI, 86-92%), 88% (95% CI, 85-91%), 6.54 (95% CI, 4.44-9.65), 0.14 (95% CI, 0.09-0.21), and 55.76 (95% CI, 37.06-83.89), respectively. The AUC was 0.95. The risk of publication bias was negligible (p = 0.33). CONCLUSION. MRI sequences could provide appreciable diagnostic performance in differentiating benign and malignant vertebral fractures. However, our pooled estimates do not support the superiority of one set of sequences over another, and there is not sufficient evidence to show that prospective or recent studies are obviously better than retrospective or older studies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available