Diagnostic performance of transvaginal sonography vs. magnetic resonance imaging for rectovaginal septum deep in filtrating endometriosis: a head-to-head comparative meta-analysis

被引:0
|
作者
Lou, Y. [1 ]
Li, D. [2 ]
Yu, J. [3 ]
Chen, J. [1 ]
Jin, X. [4 ]
机构
[1] CiXi Matern & Child Hlth Care Hosp, Women Healthcare Dept, Cixi 315300, Zhejiang, Peoples R China
[2] CiXi Matern & Child Hlth Care Hosp, Ultrasound Dept, Cixi 315300, Zhejiang, Peoples R China
[3] CiXi Matern & Child Hlth Care Hosp, Radiol Dept, Cixi 315300, Zhejiang, Peoples R China
[4] Hangzhou womens Hosp, Gynecol Dept, 369 Kunpeng Rd, Hangzhou 310000, Zhejiang, Peoples R China
关键词
ACCURACY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY; ULTRASOUND; MRI;
D O I
10.1016/j.crad.2024.05.002
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
AIM: We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of transvaginal sonography (TVS) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in identifying deep in filtrating endometriosis (DIE) in the rectovaginal septum (RVS) of affected patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An extensive search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase databases to identify available publications up to November 2023. Studies evaluating the diagnostic perfor-mance of TVS and MRI for DIE in patients with rectovaginal septum involvement were all included. Sensitivity and speci ficity analyses employed the DerSi-monian and Laird method, complemented by the Freeman-Tukey double arc-sine trans-formation. Additionally, the study quality was rigorously evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) method. RESULTS: The meta-analysis encompassed 8 articles with a total of 721 patients. It revealed that the overall sensitivity of TVS was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.31-0.72), contrasted with 0.74 (95% CI: 0.66-0.82) for MRI. This finding suggests a higher sensitivity of MRI compared to TVS ( P =0.04). Conversely, the overall speci ficity was 0.97 (95%CI: 0.94-1.00) for TVS and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.84-0.99) for MRI, indicating a comparable level of speci ficity between the two modalities ( P =0.22). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis reveals that MRI exhibits higher sensitivity and comparable speci ficity to TVS in patients with DIE of the RVS. However, the limited number of articles included may affect the evidence of these results. Therefore, further d number of articles included may affect the evidence of these results. Therefore, further research with larger sample sizes and prospective designs is essential to validate these findings. (c) 2024 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:618 / 627
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Transvaginal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative assessment of myometrial infiltration in patients with low-grade endometrioid endometrial cancer: A systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis
    Tameish, Sara
    Florez, Natalia
    Vidal, Juan Ramon Perez
    Chen, Hui
    Vara, Julio
    Alcazar, Juan Luis
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ULTRASOUND, 2023, 51 (07) : 1188 - 1197
  • [12] Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography for detecting parametrial involvement in women with deep endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Guerriero, S.
    Martinez, L.
    Gomez, I.
    Pascual, M. A.
    Ajossa, S.
    Pagliuca, M.
    Alcazar, J. L.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2021, 58 (05) : 669 - 676
  • [13] Enucleation vs. vaporization of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a head-to-head comparison of the various outcomes and complications. A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Taratkin, Mark
    Shpikina, Anastasia
    Morozov, Andrey
    Novikov, Alexey
    Fokin, Igor
    Petov, Vladislav
    Herrmann, Thomas R.
    Misrai, Vincent
    Lusuardi, Lukas
    Teoh, Jeremy Y. -C.
    Mcfarland, Jonathan
    Kozlov, Vasiliy
    Enikeev, Dmitry
    MINERVA UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2022, 74 (05): : 559 - 569
  • [14] Diagnostic performance of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 PET vs. [18F]FDG PET in detecting lymph node metastasis in digestive system cancers: a head-to-head comparative meta-analysis
    Li, Huo
    Li, Zhognzhuan
    Qin, Jing
    Huang, Shijiang
    Qin, Shufen
    Chen, Zhixin
    Rong, Ouyang
    FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2025, 12
  • [15] Head-to-Head Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of FDG PET/CT and FDG PET/MRI in Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Singnurkar, Amit
    Poon, Raymond
    Metser, Ur
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2024, 223 (03)
  • [16] Diagnostic Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Appendicitis in Adults: A Meta-Analysis
    Barger, Richard L., Jr.
    Nandalur, Kiran R.
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2010, 17 (10) : 1211 - 1216
  • [17] Accuracy of transvaginal sonography versus magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis (vol 14, e0214842, 2019)
    Moura, Ana Paula Carvalhal
    Ribeiro, Helizabet Salomao Abdalla Ayroza
    Bernardo, Wanderley Marques
    Simoes, Ricardo
    Torres, Ulysses S.
    D'Ippolito, Giuseppe
    Bazot, Marc
    Ribeiro, Paulo Augusto Ayrosa Galvao
    PLOS ONE, 2019, 14 (08):
  • [18] Meta-analysis and systematic review to determine the optimal imaging modality for the detection of uterosacral ligaments/torus uterinus, rectovaginal septum and vaginal deep endometriosis
    Gerges, B.
    Li, W.
    Leonardi, M.
    Mol, B. W.
    Condous, G.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION OPEN, 2021, 2021 (04)
  • [19] Meta-analysis of comparative diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and multislice computed tomography for noninvasive coronary angiography
    Schuijf, JD
    Bax, JJ
    Shaw, LJ
    de Roos, A
    Lamb, HJ
    van der Wall, EE
    Wijns, W
    AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL, 2006, 151 (02) : 404 - 411
  • [20] Computed Tomography Enterography Versus Magnetic Resonance Enterography for Assessment of Disease Activity and Complications in Small Bowel Crohn's Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Head-to-Head Comparative Studies
    Qiu, Yun
    Mao, Ren
    Chen, Bai-li
    He, Yao
    Zeng, Zhirong
    Chen, Minhu
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2014, 146 (05) : S428 - S429