SHAO Hongsheng 1 , SUN Yue 2 , MA Wenjuan 3 , SHI Shuzheng 3 , GOU Lingzhu 4 , LEI Junqiang 5 , TIAN Jinhui 3,6
  • 1. Radiology Department, Rehabilitation Center Hospital of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R China;
  • 2. School of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R China;
  • 3. Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R China;
  • 4. The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R China;
  • 5. The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R China;
  • 6. Key Laboratory of Clinical Translational Research and Evidence-based Medicine of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R China;
TIAN Jinhui, Email: tjh996@163.com
Cardiac magnetic resonance; Coronary artery disease; Indirect comparison; Meta-analysis; Diagnostic test
10.7507/1672-2531.201708056
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables References Cited by

ObjectivesTo assess the accuracy of different types and magnetic field intensity of cardiac magnetic resonance for coronary artery disease.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, WanFang Data, CNKI and CBM databases were searched to collect the studies on different types and magnetic field intensity of cardiac magnetic resonance for coronary artery disease from inception to May 15th, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, data were synthesized by using MetaDisc 1.4, RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 softwares. The pooled sensitivity (Sen), pooled specificity (Spe), pooled positive likelihood ratio (+LR), pooled negative likelihood ratio (–LR), pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the area under curve (AUC) of the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (SROC) were used to assess the diagnostic value of different types and magnetic field intensity of cardiac magnetic resonance.ResultsTwenty diagnostic studies were included, which involved 1 357 patients. The results of meta-analysis showed that (1) based on patient: compared with the gold standard, the pooled Sen, Spe, +LR, –LR, DOR and the AUC of SROC, pre-test probability, post-test probability were (0.87, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.90), (0.88, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.92), (7.33, 95%CI 4.74 to 11.32), (0.15, 95%CI 0.11 to 0.20), (49.53, 95%CI 27.46 to 89.36), (0.93, 95%CI 0.91 to 0.95), 20.00% and 65.00%, respectively. (2) Based on blood vessels: the pooled Sen, Spe, +LR, –LR, DOR and the AUC of SROC, pre-test probability, post-test probability were (0.81, 95%CI 0.76 to 0.85), (0.87, 95%CI 0.81 to 0.91), (6.37, 95%CI 4.37 to 9.30), (0.22, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.27), (29.58, 95%CI 18.53 to 47.22), (0.89, 95%CI 0.86 to 0.92), 20.00% and 61.00%, respectively. (3) Subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in AUROC of different types of cardiac magnetic resonance, but significant difference was found in AUROC of 1.5T and 3.0T magnetic field intensity.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that, compared with gold standard, cardiac magnetic resonance can be regarded as an effective and feasible method for preoperative staging of breast cancer.

Citation： SHAO Hongsheng, SUN Yue, MA Wenjuan, SHI Shuzheng, GOU Lingzhu, LEI Junqiang, TIAN Jinhui. The accuracy of different types and magnetic field intensity of cardiac magnetic resonance in coronary artery disease diagnosis: a meta-analysis. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2018, 18(4): 315-325. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201708056 Copy

  • Previous Article

    A bibliometric analysis of published articles by postgraduate students of West China School of Medicine in Sichuan University from 2013 to 2017

  • Next Article

    The first generation EGFR-TKIs versus pemetrexed as second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis