UNASSIGNED:系统回顾三种影像学检查的临床价值(磁共振成像,计算机断层扫描,和脊髓造影)在腰椎间盘突出症的诊断中。
UNASSIGNED:包括PubMed、Embase,科克伦图书馆,WebofScience,CBM,CNKI,万方数据,和VIP进行了电子搜索,以收集从开始到2021年7月1日诊断腰椎间盘突出症的三项影像学检查的相关研究。两名审稿人使用诊断准确性研究质量评估-2工具独立筛选了文献,提取数据,并评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。然后,采用Meta-DiSc1.4软件和Stata15.0软件进行Meta分析。
UNASSIGNED:共纳入了19篇文章中的38项研究,涉及1,875名患者。结果表明,汇集的灵敏度,汇集的特异性,合并正似然比,合并负似然比,汇总诊断赔率比,汇总接收器工作特性曲线下面积,Q*为0.89(95CI:0.87-0.91),0.83(95CI:0.78-0.87),4.57(95CI:2.95-7.08),0.14(95CI:0.09-0.22),39.80(95CI:18.35-86.32),分别为0.934和0.870,磁共振成像。汇集的敏感度,汇集的特异性,合并正似然比,合并负似然比,汇总诊断赔率比,汇总接收器工作特性曲线下面积,Q*为0.82(95CI:0.79-0.85),0.78(95CI:0.73-0.82),3.54(95CI:2.86-4.39),0.19(95CI:0.12-0.30),20.47(95CI:10.31-40.65),分别为0.835和0.792,计算机断层扫描.汇集的敏感度,汇集的特异性,合并正似然比,合并负似然比,汇总诊断赔率比,汇总接收器工作特性曲线下面积,Q*为0.79(95CI:0.75-0.82),0.75(95CI:0.70-0.80),2.94(95CI:2.43-3.56),0.29(95CI:0.21-0.42),9.59(95CI:7.05-13.04),分别为0.834和0.767,脊髓造影。
UNASSIGNED:三种影像学检查具有较高的诊断价值。此外,与脊髓造影相比,磁共振成像具有较高的诊断价值。
UNASSIGNED: To systematically
review the clinical value of three imaging examinations (Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Computed Tomography, and
myelography) in the diagnosis of Lumbar Disc Herniation.
UNASSIGNED: Databases including PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP were electronically searched to collect relevant studies on three imaging examinations in the diagnosis of Lumbar Disc Herniation from inception to July 1, 2021. Two reviewers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed by using Meta-DiSc 1.4 software and Stata 15.0 software.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 38 studies from 19 articles were included, involving 1,875 patients. The results showed that the pooled Sensitivity, pooled Specificity, pooled Positive Likelihood Ratio, pooled Negative Likelihood Ratio, pooled Diagnostic Odds Ratio, Area Under the Curve of Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic, and Q* were 0.89 (95%CI: 0.87-0.91), 0.83 (95%CI: 0.78-0.87), 4.57 (95%CI: 2.95-7.08), 0.14 (95%CI: 0.09-0.22), 39.80 (95%CI: 18.35-86.32), 0.934, and 0.870, respectively, for Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The pooled Sensitivity, pooled Specificity, pooled Positive Likelihood Ratio, pooled Negative Likelihood Ratio, pooled Diagnostic Odds Ratio, Area Under the Curve of Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic, and Q* were 0.82 (95%CI: 0.79-0.85), 0.78 (95%CI: 0.73-0.82), 3.54 (95%CI: 2.86-4.39), 0.19 (95%CI: 0.12-0.30), 20.47 (95%CI: 10.31-40.65), 0.835, and 0.792, respectively, for Computed Tomography. The pooled Sensitivity, pooled Specificity, pooled Positive Likelihood Ratio, pooled Negative Likelihood Ratio, pooled Diagnostic Odds Ratio, Area Under the Curve of Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic, and Q* were 0.79 (95%CI: 0.75-0.82), 0.75 (95%CI: 0.70-0.80), 2.94 (95%CI: 2.43-3.56), 0.29 (95%CI: 0.21-0.42), 9.59 (95%CI: 7.05-13.04), 0.834, and 0.767 respectively, for
myelography.
UNASSIGNED: Three imaging examinations had high diagnostic value. In addition, compared with
myelography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging had a higher diagnostic value.