Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.authorWattar, B.
dc.contributor.authorSaeed Khan, Khalid 
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-04T12:40:18Z
dc.date.available2020-11-04T12:40:18Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationWattar B, Rimmer M, Rogozinska E, Macmillian M, Khan KS, Al Wattar BH. Accuracy of imaging modalities for adnexal torsion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2020; [https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16371]es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10481/64057
dc.description.abstractBackground Adnexal torsion (AT), a serious gynaecological emergency, often presents with non-specific symptoms leading to delayed diagnosis. Objective To compare the test accuracy of ultrasound, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to diagnose AT. Search strategy We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL until December 2019. Selection criteria Studies reporting on the accuracy of any imaging modality (Index Test) in female patients (paediatric and adult) suspected of AT compared with surgical diagnosis and/or standard clinical/radiological follow-up period until resolution of symptoms (Reference Standard). Data collection and analysis We assessed study quality using QUADAS-2. We conducted test accuracy meta-analysis using a univariate model or a hierarchical model. Main results We screened 3836 citations, included 18 studies (1654 women, 665 cases), and included 15 in the meta-analyses. Ultrasound pooled sensitivity (n = 12, 1187 women) was 0.79 (95% CI 0.63–0.92) and specificity was 0.76 (95% CI 0.54–0.93), with negative and positive likelihood ratios of 0.29 (95% CI 0.13– 0.66) and 4.35 (95% CI 2.03–9.32), respectively. Using Doppler with ultrasound (n = 7, 845 women) yielded similar sensitivity (0.80, 95% CI 0.67–0.93) and specificity (0.88, 95% CI 0.72–1.00). For MRI (n = 3, 99 women), the pooled sensitivity was 0.81 (95% CI 0.63–0.91) and specificity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.80–0.96). A meta-analysis for CT was not possible with two case-control studies and one cohort study (n = 3, 232 women). Its sensitivity range was 0.74–0.95 and specificity was 0.80–0.90. Conclusions Ultrasound has good performance as a first-line diagnostic test for suspected AT. Magnetic resonance imaging could offer improved specificity to investigate complex ovarian morphology, but more evidence is needed.es_ES
dc.description.abstractTweetable abstract To investigate adnexal torsion, ultrasound is a good first-line diagnostic test with a pooled sensitivity of 0.79 and specificity of 0.76.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherWILEYes_ES
dc.rightsAtribución 3.0 España*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/*
dc.subjectAdnexaes_ES
dc.subjectComputed tomographyes_ES
dc.subjectDoppleres_ES
dc.subjectMagnetic resonance imaging es_ES
dc.subjectMeta-analysises_ES
dc.subjectOvaryes_ES
dc.subjectTest accuracyes_ES
dc.subjectTorsiones_ES
dc.subjectUltrasoundes_ES
dc.titleAccuracy of imaging modalities for adnexal torsion: a systematic review and meta-analysises_ES
dc.typejournal articlees_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsopen accesses_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/1471-0528.16371


Ficheros en el ítem

[PDF]

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Atribución 3.0 España
Excepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como Atribución 3.0 España