Dataset Information

Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Parkinsonian Disorders: A Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Numerous conventional magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) parameters were previously found to differentiate parkinsonian disorders with statistical significance, but effect size has not been considered.

Objectives

To quantify effect size of previously identified cMRI parameters that differentiated parkinsonian disorders with statistical significance.

Method

A PubMed search limited to studies assessing cMRI parameters in at least 2 of Parkinson's disease, progressive supranuclear palsy, multiple system atrophy, and corticobasal degeneration/syndrome were selected. Either Cohen's d or positive and negative likelihood (LR+/-) as well as diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) were calculated as appropriate. cMRI parameter was considered useful if Cohen's d > 1.94 (<20% overlap) or if LR+ > 10, LR- < 0.1, or DOR > 20.

Results

Literature search identified 8848 publications and 36 were included for analysis. Putaminal (Cohen's d 2.07; DOR 23-infinity), pontine (DOR 32-infinity), and middle cerebellar peduncle (Cohen's d 2.24; DOR infinity) abnormalities were most useful in differentiating multiple system atrophy while reduced midbrain (Cohen's d 2.33-8.69; DOR infinity) and superior cerebellar peduncle (Cohen's d 2.47; DOR 51-infinity) diameters separated progressive supranuclear palsy. Corticobasal degeneration/syndrome does not have any distinguishing cMRI features, but reduced midbrain diameter may help differentiate corticobasal degeneration/syndrome from Parkinson's disease (DOR infinity). When LR- was calculated, all of these features carried a value of <0.1.

Conclusion

A number of cMRI features consistently demonstrated large effect size in separating parkinsonian disorders. However, it is the presence and not absence of these cMRI features that is most useful in patients with low to moderate pretest probability.

SUBMITTER: Lee W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7853196 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIntestinal endometriosis is considered the most severe form of deep endometriosis, the rectosigmoid being involved in about 90% of cases of bowel infiltration. Transvaginal sonography (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been used for noninvasive diagnosis and preoperative mapping of rectosigmoid endometriosis (RE), but no consensus has been reached so far regarding which method is the most accurate in this setting.ObjectiveWe aimed at performing a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the accuracy of TVS versus MRI in the diagnosis of RE in a same population.MethodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were identified by searching the MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases, as well the reference lists of retrieved articles, through February 2019. We included all cross-sectional studies that evaluated the accuracy of TVS versus MRI in the diagnosis of RE within a same sample of subjects and that used surgical findings with histological confirmation as the gold standard. The QUADAS-2 instrument was used to evaluate study quality. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (LR+), and negative likelihood ratios (LR-) for the diagnosis of RE were calculated. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017064378.ResultsEight studies (n = 1132) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR- values of MRI for RE were 90% (95% CI, 87-92%), 96% (95% CI, 94-97%), 17.26 (95% CI, 3.57-83.50), and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.10-0.23); values of TVS were 90% [95% CI, 87-92%], 96% (95% CI, 94-97%), 20.66 (95% CI, 8.71-49.00) and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.08-0.20), respectively. Areas under the S-ROC curves (AUC) showed no statistically significant differences between MRI (AUC = 0.948) and TVS (AUC = 0.930) in the diagnosis of RE (P = 0.13). Moreover, considering the average prevalence among the studies of 47.3%, both methods demonstrated similarly high positive post-test probabilities (93.9% for TVS and 94.8% for MRI), and the combined use of them yielded a post-test probability of 99.6%.ConclusionMRI and TVS have similarly high accuracy and positive post-test probabilities in the noninvasive diagnosis of RE. Combination of MRI and TVS may increase even further the positive post-test probabilities to near 100%.

Project description:BackgroundDiagnosis of mandibular involvement caused by head and neck cancers is critical for treatment. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic efficacy of MR for distinguishing mandibular involvement caused by head and neck cancers.MethodsThirteen databases were searched electronically and hand-searching was also done. Two reviewers conducted study inclusion, data extractions, and quality assessment of the studies independently. Meta-disc 1.4 and STATA 11.0 were used to conduct the meta-analysis.Results16 studies involving a total of 490 participants underwent MR examinations and were accounted for in this meta-analysis. Among the included studies, 2 had high risk of bias, while the rest had unclear risk of bias. Meta-regression showed that the slight clinical and methodological heterogeneities did not influence the outcome (P>0.05). Meta-analysis indicated that the MR for the diagnosis of mandibular involvement had a pooled sensitivity (SEN) of 78%, specificity (SPE) of 83%, positive likelihood ratio (+LR) of 3.80, negative likelihood ratio (-LR) of 0.28, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 28.94, area under curve (AUC) of 0.9110, and Q* of 0.8432. Two studies detected the diagnostic efficacy of MR for the mandibular medullar invasion, and only one study reported the inferior alveolar canal invasion, which made it impossible to include it in our meta-analysis. In comparing to CT, MR had a higher SEN without statistical significance (P = 0.08), but a significantly lower SPE (P = 0.04). The synthesized diagnostic efficacy (AUC and Q*) on mandibular involvement was similar between the two modalities (P>0.05).ConclusionsPresent clinical evidence showed that MR had an acceptable diagnostic value in detecting mandibular involvement caused by head and neck cancers. MR exceeded CT in diagnosing patients with mandibular invasion (higher sensitivity than CT) but was less efficacious to exclude patients without the mandibular invasion (lower specificity than CT).