TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy CT for the detection of bone marrow edema in the appendicular skeleton
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Wilson, Mitchell P.
AU - Lui, Kevin
AU - Nobbee, Dorian
AU - Murad, Mohammad H.
AU - McInnes, Matthew D.F.
AU - McGrath, Trevor A.
AU - Katlariwala, Prayash
AU - Low, Gavin
N1 - Funding Information:
Studentship funding for this systematic review was provided through an Office of the Provost and VP (Academic) Summer Student Award from the University of Alberta Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, and through the Radiology Endowment Fund from the University of Alberta Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, European Society of Radiology.
PY - 2021/3
Y1 - 2021/3
N2 - Objectives: This meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy CT (DECT) for detecting bone marrow edema (BME) in the appendicular skeleton. Methods: A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and gray literature from inception through January 31, 2020, was performed. Original articles with > 10 patients evaluating the accuracy of DECT for detecting BME in the appendicular skeleton with a reference standard of MRI and/or clinical follow-up were included. Study details were independently extracted by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate random-effects model with multivariable meta-regression. Risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated with QUADAS-2. Results: Twenty studies evaluating 790 patients for BME in the appendicular skeleton were included in analysis. The summary sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values for BME in the appendicular skeleton were 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82–89%), 93% (95% CI 90–95%), and 0.95, respectively. Quantitative analysis had a higher sensitivity than qualitative analysis on meta-regression (p = 0.01), but no difference in specificity (p = 0.28). No other covariates contributed to variability in accuracy (etiology (trauma vs non-trauma); location (upper vs lower extremity); and RoB). Studies demonstrated generally low or unclear RoB and applicability. Eight studies included index tests with high RoB when quantitative assessments used a retrospective cut-off value. Conclusions: DECT demonstrates a higher specificity than sensitivity and AUC > 0.9. In scenarios where MRI availability is limited or contraindicated, DECT could be an alternative to MRI for detecting BME in the appendicular skeleton. However, limitations in sources of variability and RoB warrant continued study. Key Points: • Twenty studies evaluating 790 patients for bone marrow edema in the appendicular skeleton with dual-energy CT were included in analysis. • The summary sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values for detecting bone marrow in the appendicular skeleton were 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82–89%), 93% (95% CI 90–95%), and 0.95, respectively. • In scenarios where MRI availability is limited or is contraindicated, DECT could be an alternative to MRI for detecting bone marrow edema in the appendicular skeleton.
AB - Objectives: This meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy CT (DECT) for detecting bone marrow edema (BME) in the appendicular skeleton. Methods: A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and gray literature from inception through January 31, 2020, was performed. Original articles with > 10 patients evaluating the accuracy of DECT for detecting BME in the appendicular skeleton with a reference standard of MRI and/or clinical follow-up were included. Study details were independently extracted by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate random-effects model with multivariable meta-regression. Risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated with QUADAS-2. Results: Twenty studies evaluating 790 patients for BME in the appendicular skeleton were included in analysis. The summary sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values for BME in the appendicular skeleton were 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82–89%), 93% (95% CI 90–95%), and 0.95, respectively. Quantitative analysis had a higher sensitivity than qualitative analysis on meta-regression (p = 0.01), but no difference in specificity (p = 0.28). No other covariates contributed to variability in accuracy (etiology (trauma vs non-trauma); location (upper vs lower extremity); and RoB). Studies demonstrated generally low or unclear RoB and applicability. Eight studies included index tests with high RoB when quantitative assessments used a retrospective cut-off value. Conclusions: DECT demonstrates a higher specificity than sensitivity and AUC > 0.9. In scenarios where MRI availability is limited or contraindicated, DECT could be an alternative to MRI for detecting BME in the appendicular skeleton. However, limitations in sources of variability and RoB warrant continued study. Key Points: • Twenty studies evaluating 790 patients for bone marrow edema in the appendicular skeleton with dual-energy CT were included in analysis. • The summary sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values for detecting bone marrow in the appendicular skeleton were 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82–89%), 93% (95% CI 90–95%), and 0.95, respectively. • In scenarios where MRI availability is limited or is contraindicated, DECT could be an alternative to MRI for detecting bone marrow edema in the appendicular skeleton.
KW - Bone marrow
KW - Bones of lower extremity
KW - Bones of upper extremity
KW - Radiography, dual-energy scanned projection
KW - Tomography, X-ray computed
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090468008&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85090468008&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00330-020-07236-3
DO - 10.1007/s00330-020-07236-3
M3 - Article
C2 - 32901304
AN - SCOPUS:85090468008
SN - 0938-7994
VL - 31
SP - 1558
EP - 1568
JO - European radiology
JF - European radiology
IS - 3
ER -