The Diagnostic Accuracy of Different MRI Sequences for Different Meniscus Lesions: A Meta-analysis

Author:

Huang Lixin1,Du Jun23ORCID,Jhonatan Felix Young4,Li Kun15ORCID,Chen Jinhua1,Zhou Liyu1,Yang Huilin1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 899 Pinghai Road, Suzhou, 215000, China

2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 899 Pinghai Road, Suzhou, 215000, China

3. Department of Orthopedic Magnetic Resonance Chamber, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 899 Pinghai Road, Suzhou, 215000, China

4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 899 Pinghai Road, Suzhou, 215000, China.

5. Department of Biopharmagen Corp., Fangzhou, No. 88 Dongchang Road, Suzhou, 215127, China.

Abstract

Background: It is still uncertain to determine the exact diagnostic accuracy of MRI for medial meniscus (MM) tear, lateral meniscus (LM) tear and MM posterior root tear (MMPRT) at different magnetic field intensities (MFIs), different sequences and different publication dates. This study aimed to identify the diagnostic performance of MRI for different meniscus lesions at different MFIs, different sequences and different publication dates, and also to compare it with physical examination. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Ovid database, Biosis Previews, Cochrane library, Web of Sciences and manual searching were performed from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2021. Prospective studies of meniscus injuries examined by physical examination, MRI and arthroscopy were included. Results: Thirteen studies with 1583 meniscal tears were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under curve (AUC) were 87% (95% confidence interval (CI), 86-89%), 82% (80-83%), 7.44 (5.11- 10.75), 0.18 (0.14-0.23), 45.95 (26,68-79.15) and 0.93, respectively. The pooled specificity between MM and LM (p = 0.015), the pooled sensitivity and LR- between MM and MMPR (p = 0.031), different MRI sequences (p = 0.035, p = 0.027), and the accuracy of less than 1.5T and 3.0T (p = 0.04), 1.5T and 3.0T (p = 0.035) were statistically different. There was no publication bias (p = 0.54). Conclusion: MRI performed well in the diagnosis of MM tear, LM tear and MMPRT, and the diagnostic performance of physical examination is similar to MRI. The diagnostic accuracy of 3.0T is the highest, and the -weighted imaging (SWI) sequence may be beneficial for diagnosing meniscus tear. However, there are not enough evidence to prove that recent studies are significantly better than previous ones.

Publisher

Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.

Subject

Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3