Performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract Objectives Accurate prenatal diagnosis of placenta accrete spectrum disorder (PAS) remains a challenge, and the reported diagnostic value of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) varies widely. This study aims to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of US as c...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SpringerOpen
2022-03-01
|
| Series: | Insights into Imaging |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01192-w |
| _version_ | 1818358451865124864 |
|---|---|
| author | Shibin Hong Yiping Le Ka U. Lio Ting Zhang Yu Zhang Ning Zhang |
| author_facet | Shibin Hong Yiping Le Ka U. Lio Ting Zhang Yu Zhang Ning Zhang |
| author_sort | Shibin Hong |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Objectives Accurate prenatal diagnosis of placenta accrete spectrum disorder (PAS) remains a challenge, and the reported diagnostic value of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) varies widely. This study aims to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of US as compared with MRI in the detection of PAS within the identical patient population. Methods Medline, EMBASE, Google scholar and Cochrane library were searched. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were calculated. Subgroup analysis was also performed to elucidate the heterogeneity of results. Results A total of 18 articles comprising 861 pregnancies were included in the study. The overall diagnostic accuracy of US for identification of PAS was as follows: sensitivity [0.90 (0.86–0.93)], specificity [0.83 (0.79–0.86)], DOR [39.5 (19.6–79.7)]. The overall diagnostic accuracy of MRI for identification of PAS was as follows: sensitivity [0.89 (0.85-0.92)], specificity [0.87 (0.83–0.89)], DOR [37.4 (17.0–82.3)]. The pooled sensitivity (p = 0.808) and specificity (p = 0.413) between US and MRI are not significantly different. SROC analysis revealed that there was no statistical difference (p = 0.552) in US and MRI for the overall predictive accuracy of PAS. Furthermore, in the subgroup analysis of between retrospective and prospective studies, between earlier and most recent studies, there was no statistical difference (p > 0.05) in diagnostic accuracy of US and MRI for the detection of PAS. Conclusions Both ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed comparable accuracy in the prenatal diagnosis of placenta accrete spectrum disorder (PAS). Routine employment of MRI with relatively high expense in the prenatal identification of PAS should not be recommended. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T20:29:13Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-eb253c6dd73542198c5e2a73edade0f2 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1869-4101 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T20:29:13Z |
| publishDate | 2022-03-01 |
| publisher | SpringerOpen |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Insights into Imaging |
| spelling | doaj.art-eb253c6dd73542198c5e2a73edade0f22022-12-21T23:32:28ZengSpringerOpenInsights into Imaging1869-41012022-03-0113111310.1186/s13244-022-01192-wPerformance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysisShibin Hong0Yiping Le1Ka U. Lio2Ting Zhang3Yu Zhang4Ning Zhang5Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ren Ji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ren Ji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineDepartment of Medicine, Temple University Hospital, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple UniversityDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hainan Women and Children’s Medical CenterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ren Ji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ren Ji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineAbstract Objectives Accurate prenatal diagnosis of placenta accrete spectrum disorder (PAS) remains a challenge, and the reported diagnostic value of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) varies widely. This study aims to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of US as compared with MRI in the detection of PAS within the identical patient population. Methods Medline, EMBASE, Google scholar and Cochrane library were searched. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were calculated. Subgroup analysis was also performed to elucidate the heterogeneity of results. Results A total of 18 articles comprising 861 pregnancies were included in the study. The overall diagnostic accuracy of US for identification of PAS was as follows: sensitivity [0.90 (0.86–0.93)], specificity [0.83 (0.79–0.86)], DOR [39.5 (19.6–79.7)]. The overall diagnostic accuracy of MRI for identification of PAS was as follows: sensitivity [0.89 (0.85-0.92)], specificity [0.87 (0.83–0.89)], DOR [37.4 (17.0–82.3)]. The pooled sensitivity (p = 0.808) and specificity (p = 0.413) between US and MRI are not significantly different. SROC analysis revealed that there was no statistical difference (p = 0.552) in US and MRI for the overall predictive accuracy of PAS. Furthermore, in the subgroup analysis of between retrospective and prospective studies, between earlier and most recent studies, there was no statistical difference (p > 0.05) in diagnostic accuracy of US and MRI for the detection of PAS. Conclusions Both ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed comparable accuracy in the prenatal diagnosis of placenta accrete spectrum disorder (PAS). Routine employment of MRI with relatively high expense in the prenatal identification of PAS should not be recommended.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01192-wUltrasonographyMagnetic resonance imagingPlacenta accrete spectrum disordersMeta-analysis |
| spellingShingle | Shibin Hong Yiping Le Ka U. Lio Ting Zhang Yu Zhang Ning Zhang Performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis Insights into Imaging Ultrasonography Magnetic resonance imaging Placenta accrete spectrum disorders Meta-analysis |
| title | Performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| title_full | Performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| title_fullStr | Performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| title_short | Performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| title_sort | performance comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in their diagnostic accuracy of placenta accreta spectrum disorders a systematic review and meta analysis |
| topic | Ultrasonography Magnetic resonance imaging Placenta accrete spectrum disorders Meta-analysis |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01192-w |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT shibinhong performancecomparisonofultrasonographyandmagneticresonanceimagingintheirdiagnosticaccuracyofplacentaaccretaspectrumdisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT yipingle performancecomparisonofultrasonographyandmagneticresonanceimagingintheirdiagnosticaccuracyofplacentaaccretaspectrumdisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT kaulio performancecomparisonofultrasonographyandmagneticresonanceimagingintheirdiagnosticaccuracyofplacentaaccretaspectrumdisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT tingzhang performancecomparisonofultrasonographyandmagneticresonanceimagingintheirdiagnosticaccuracyofplacentaaccretaspectrumdisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT yuzhang performancecomparisonofultrasonographyandmagneticresonanceimagingintheirdiagnosticaccuracyofplacentaaccretaspectrumdisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT ningzhang performancecomparisonofultrasonographyandmagneticresonanceimagingintheirdiagnosticaccuracyofplacentaaccretaspectrumdisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |