We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Diagnostic Performance of CT for Diagnosis of Fat-Poor Angiomyolipoma in Patients With Renal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology 2017 November
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of CT for diagnosis of fat-poor angiomyolipoma (AML) in patients with renal masses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched up to February 2, 2017. We included diagnostic accuracy studies that used CT for diagnosis of fat-poor AML in patients with renal masses, using pathologic examination as the reference standard. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodologic quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity of included studies were calculated and were pooled and plotted in a hierarchic summary ROC plot. Sensitivity analyses using several clinically relevant covariates were performed to explore heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies (2258 patients) were included. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.67 (95% CI, 0.48-0.81) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99), respectively. Substantial and considerable heterogeneity was present with regard to sensitivity and specificity (I2 = 91.21% and 78.53%, respectively). At sensitivity analyses, the specificity estimates were comparable and consistently high across all subgroups (0.93-1.00), but sensitivity estimates showed significant variation (0.14-0.82). Studies using pixel distribution analysis (n = 3) showed substantially lower sensitivity estimates (0.14; 95% CI, 0.04-0.40) compared with the remaining 12 studies (0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.85).
CONCLUSION: CT shows moderate sensitivity and excellent specificity for diagnosis of fat-poor AML in patients with renal masses. When methods other than pixel distribution analysis are used, better sensitivity can be achieved.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched up to February 2, 2017. We included diagnostic accuracy studies that used CT for diagnosis of fat-poor AML in patients with renal masses, using pathologic examination as the reference standard. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodologic quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity of included studies were calculated and were pooled and plotted in a hierarchic summary ROC plot. Sensitivity analyses using several clinically relevant covariates were performed to explore heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies (2258 patients) were included. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.67 (95% CI, 0.48-0.81) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99), respectively. Substantial and considerable heterogeneity was present with regard to sensitivity and specificity (I2 = 91.21% and 78.53%, respectively). At sensitivity analyses, the specificity estimates were comparable and consistently high across all subgroups (0.93-1.00), but sensitivity estimates showed significant variation (0.14-0.82). Studies using pixel distribution analysis (n = 3) showed substantially lower sensitivity estimates (0.14; 95% CI, 0.04-0.40) compared with the remaining 12 studies (0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.85).
CONCLUSION: CT shows moderate sensitivity and excellent specificity for diagnosis of fat-poor AML in patients with renal masses. When methods other than pixel distribution analysis are used, better sensitivity can be achieved.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app