We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
The diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance venography in the detection of deep venous thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Clinical Radiology 2015 August
AIM: To search the literature for further evidence for the use of magnetic resonance venography (MRV) in the detection of suspected DVT and to re-evaluate the accuracy of MRV in the detection of suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched. Study quality and the risk of bias were evaluated using the QUADAS 2. A random effects meta-analysis including subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: The search resulted in 23 observational studies all from academic centres. Sixteen articles were included in the meta-analysis. The summary estimates for MRV as a diagnostic non-invasive tool revealed a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 89% to 95%) and specificity of 96% (95% CI: 94% to 97%). The heterogeneity of the studies was high. Inconsistency (I2) for sensitivity and specificity was 80.7% and 77.9%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Further studies investigating the use of MRV in the detection of suspected DVT did not offer further evidence to support the replacement of ultrasound with MRV as the first-line investigation. However, MRV may offer an alternative tool in the detection/diagnosis of DVT for whom ultrasound is inadequate or not feasible (such as in the obese patient).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched. Study quality and the risk of bias were evaluated using the QUADAS 2. A random effects meta-analysis including subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: The search resulted in 23 observational studies all from academic centres. Sixteen articles were included in the meta-analysis. The summary estimates for MRV as a diagnostic non-invasive tool revealed a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 89% to 95%) and specificity of 96% (95% CI: 94% to 97%). The heterogeneity of the studies was high. Inconsistency (I2) for sensitivity and specificity was 80.7% and 77.9%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Further studies investigating the use of MRV in the detection of suspected DVT did not offer further evidence to support the replacement of ultrasound with MRV as the first-line investigation. However, MRV may offer an alternative tool in the detection/diagnosis of DVT for whom ultrasound is inadequate or not feasible (such as in the obese patient).
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