The accuracy of MRI in diagnosis of suspected deep vein thrombosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:108
作者
Sampson, Fiona C.
Goodacre, Steve W.
Thomas, Steven M.
van Beek, Edwin J. R.
机构
[1] Univ Sheffield, ScHARR, Hlth Serv Res Sect, Sheffield S1 4DA, S Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ Sheffield, No Gen Hosp, Acad Vasc Unit, Sheffield S5 7AU, S Yorkshire, England
[3] Univ Iowa Hosp & Clin, Carver Coll Med, Dept Radiol, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
关键词
deep vein thrombosis; systematic review; meta-analysis; magnetic resonance imaging;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-006-0178-5
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be used to diagnose deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients for whom ultrasound examination is inappropriate or unfeasible. We undertook a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for DVT. We searched databases of medical literature and citation lists of retrieved articles. We selected studies that compared MRI with a reference standard in patients with suspected DVT or suspected pulmonary embolus, or high-risk asymptomatic patients. Data were analysed by random effects meta-analysis. We included 14 articles in the meta-analysis. Most compared MRI with venography in patients with clinically suspected DVT. The pooled estimate of sensitivity was 91.5% (95% CI: 87.5-94.5%) and the pooled estimate of specificity was 94.8% (95% CI: 92.6-96.5%). Sensitivity for proximal DVT was higher than sensitivity for distal DVT (93.9% versus 62.1%). However, pooled estimates should be interpreted with caution as estimates of both sensitivity and specificity were subject to significant heterogeneity (P < 0.001). Individual studies reported sensitivity ranging from zero to 100%, while specificity ranged from 43 to 100%. MRI has equivalent sensitivity and specificity to ultrasound for diagnosis of DVT, but has been evaluated in many fewer studies, using a variety of different techniques.
引用
收藏
页码:175 / 181
页数:7
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]  
ALTMAN DG, 2000, CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
[2]   MAGNETIC-RESONANCE VENOGRAPHY FOR THE DETECTION OF DEEP VENOUS THROMBOSIS - COMPARISON WITH CONTRAST VENOGRAPHY AND DUPLEX-DOPPLER ULTRASONOGRAPHY [J].
CARPENTER, JP ;
HOLLAND, GA ;
BAUM, RA ;
OWEN, RS ;
CARPENTER, JT ;
COPE, C .
JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 1993, 18 (05) :734-741
[3]  
Catalano C, 1997, ACTA RADIOL, V38, P907
[4]   Optimized image reconstruction for detection of deep venous thrombosis at multidetector-row CT venography [J].
Das, M ;
Mühlenbruch, G ;
Mahnken, AH ;
Weiss, C ;
Schoepf, UJ ;
Leidecker, C ;
Günther, RW ;
Wildberger, JE .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2006, 16 (02) :269-275
[5]   DEEP VENOUS THROMBOSIS OF EXTREMITIES - ROLE OF MR IMAGING IN THE DIAGNOSIS [J].
ERDMAN, WA ;
JAYSON, HT ;
REDMAN, HC ;
MILLER, GL ;
PARKEY, RW ;
PESHOCK, RW .
RADIOLOGY, 1990, 174 (02) :425-431
[6]   DETECTION OF DEEP VENOUS THROMBOSIS - PROSPECTIVE COMPARISON OF MR-IMAGING WITH CONTRAST VENOGRAPHY [J].
EVANS, AJ ;
SOSTMAN, HD ;
KNELSON, MH ;
SPRITZER, CE ;
NEWMAN, GE ;
PAINE, SS ;
BEAM, CA .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1993, 161 (01) :131-139
[7]   Detection of deep venous thrombosis: Prospective comparison of MR imaging and sonography [J].
Evans, AJ ;
Sostman, HD ;
Witty, LA ;
Paulson, EK ;
Spritzer, CE ;
Hertzberg, BS ;
Carroll, BA ;
Tapson, VF ;
Saltzman, HA ;
DeLong, DM .
JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 1996, 6 (01) :44-51
[8]   Deep venous thrombosis: Diagnosis by using venous enhanced subtracted peak arterial MR venography versus conventional venography [J].
Fraser, DGW ;
Moody, AR ;
Davidson, IR ;
Martel, AL ;
Morgan, PS .
RADIOLOGY, 2003, 226 (03) :812-820
[9]   Diagnosis of lower-limb deep venous thrombosis: A prospective blinded study of magnetic resonance direct thrombus imaging [J].
Fraser, DGW ;
Moody, AR ;
Morgan, PS ;
Martel, AL ;
Davidson, I .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2002, 136 (02) :89-98
[10]  
GENKINS SM, 1988, RADIOLOGY, V69, P206