4.3 Review

MIBG scintigraphy in differential diagnosis of Parkinsonism: a meta-analysis

期刊

CLINICAL AUTONOMIC RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 43-55

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10286-011-0135-5

关键词

MIBG; Metaiodobenzylguanidine; Parkinson's disease; Parkinsonism; Differential diagnosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Differential diagnosis between Parkinson's disease (PD) and other Parkinsonism using clinical criteria or imaging methods is often difficult. The purpose of this study is to systematically review and meta-analyze published data about the diagnostic performance of myocardial innervation imaging using I-123-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scintigraphy in differential diagnosis between PD and other Parkinsonism. Methods A comprehensive computer literature search of studies published through March 2011 regarding MIBG scintigraphy in patients with PD and other Parkinsonism was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases. Only studies in which MIBG scintigraphy was performed for differential diagnosis between PD and other Parkinsonism were selected. Pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity and area under the ROC curve were calculated to measure the accuracy of MIBG scintigraphy in differential diagnosis between PD and other Parkinsonism. Results Nineteen studies comprising 1,972 patients (1,076 patients with PD, 117 patients with other Lewy body diseases and 779 patients with other diseases) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity of MIBG scintigraphy in detecting PD was 88% (95% CI 86-90%); the pooled specificity of MIBG scintigraphy in discriminating between PD and other Parkinsonism was 85% (95% CI 81-88%). The area under the ROC curve was 0.93. Conclusions In patients with clinically suspected PD, myocardial innervation imaging demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity. MIBG scintigraphy is an accurate test in this setting. Nevertheless, possible causes of false-negative and false-positive results should be kept in mind when interpreting the scintigraphic results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据