Evidence Hub

Accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography for bone marrow edema in the sacroiliac joint: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Xin Li, Jianguo Wang, Ping Li, Shunda Zhuang, Shun-Ri Jiang, Wen-Qian Liu

Medicine, 2024

291 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

Background: This systematic literature review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) of the sacroiliac joint. Bone marrow edema (BME) of the sacroiliac joint is an early manifestation of some diseases, such as ankylosing spondylitis, and is usually examined by nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); however, MRI can be intolerable for some patients; hence, numerous studies have analyzed DECT examinations. Methods: We searched PUBMED, CNKI, and EMBASE in 2023 for articles containing the following terms (DECT) or (DE-CT) or (dual-energy CT) or “dual-energy CT” or (dual-energy computed tomography) and ((sacroiliac joint) or (ankylosing spondylitis) or (sacroiliac arthritis) or (sacroiliitis)). An initial search identified 444 articles, of which 7 met the criteria. Data were extracted to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds for analysis using R software. Results: Out of 291 patients and 577 sacroiliac joints, 429 (74.35%) exhibited BME. All studies used magnetic resonance as the control group. The overall sensitivity and specificity of DECT were 79%, and 92%, respectively, with positive prediction rate of 92.55% and negative prediction rate of 83.73%. Conclusion: DECT appears to be a promising diagnostic tool for detecting BME in the sacroiliac joint and can be used as an alternative examination method for patients in whom MRI is contraindicated.

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: 291 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