Evidence Hub

Diagnostic performance of dual-energy CT in detecting bone marrow edema in lower limb joint injuries: a meta-analysis

Yong Wang, Kai Huang, Qiao-Feng Guo, Hongtao Hou

Clinical imaging, 2024

625 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in detecting bone marrow edema (BME) in patients with lower limb joint injuries.

METHODS

A thorough literature search was conducted across the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies up to April 2024. Studies examining the diagnostic performance of DECT in detecting BME in lower limb joint injuries patients were included. Sensitivity and specificity were evaluated using the inverse variance method and transformed via the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. Furthermore, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool was utilized to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 17 articles involving 625 patients. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for DECT in detecting BME in lower limb joint injuries patients were 0.82 (95 % CI: 0.76-0.87), 0.95 (95 % CI: 0.92-0.97), and 0.95 (95 % CI: 0.93-0.97), respectively. The pooled sensitivity of DECT for detecting BME in knee, hip, and ankle joint injuries was 0.80, 0.84, and 0.80, with no significant difference among these joints (P = 0.55). The pooled specificity for knee, hip, and ankle injuries was 0.95, 0.97, and 0.89. Specificity differed significantly among the joints (P < 0.01), with the highest specificity in hip injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis indicates that DECT demonstrates high diagnostic…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 625 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free