Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Transvaginal ultrasound vs magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing deep infiltrating endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 51(5):586-595UO

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of studies comparing the accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosing deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) including only studies in which patients underwent both techniques.

METHODS

An extensive search was carried out in PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science for papers from January 1989 to October 2016 comparing TVS and MRI in DIE. Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported on the use of TVS and MRI in the same set of patients for the preoperative detection of endometriosis in pelvic locations in women with clinical suspicion of DIE and using surgical data as a reference standard. Quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. A random-effects model was used to determine pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR).

RESULTS

Of 375 citations identified, six studies (n = 424) were considered eligible. For MRI in the detection of DIE in the rectosigmoid, pooled sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90), specificity was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.83-0.99), LR+ was 18.4 (95% CI, 4.7-72.4), LR- was 0.16 (95% CI, 0.11-0.24) and DOR was 116 (95% CI, 23-585). For TVS in the detection of DIE in the rectosigmoid, pooled sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.68-0.94), specificity was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.85-0.99), LR+ was 20.4 (95% CI, 4.7-88.5), LR- was 0.16 (95% CI, 0.07-0.38) and DOR was 127 (95% CI, 14-1126). For MRI in the detection of DIE in the rectovaginal septum, pooled sensitivity was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.51-0.79), specificity was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99), LR+ was 22.5 (95% CI, 6.7-76.2), LR- was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.23-0.52) and DOR was 65 (95% CI, 21-204). For TVS in the detection of DIE in the rectovaginal septum, pooled sensitivity was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.26-0.86), specificity was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.94-0.99), LR+ was 23.5 (95% CI, 9.1-60.5), LR- was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.18-0.97) and DOR was 56 (95% CI, 11-275). For MRI in the detection of DIE in the uterosacral ligaments, pooled sensitivity was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55-0.82), specificity was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-0.97), LR+ was 10.4 (95% CI, 5.1-21.2), LR- was 0.32 (95% CI, 0.20-0.51) and DOR was 32 (95% CI, 12-85). For TVS in the detection of DIE in the uterosacral ligaments, pooled sensitivity was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.55-0.77), specificity was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.73-0.93), LR+ was 4.8 (95% CI, 2.6-9.0), LR- was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.29-0.50) and DOR was 12 (95% CI, 7-24). Confidence intervals of pooled sensitivities, specificities and DOR were wide for both techniques in all the locations considered. Heterogeneity was moderate or high for sensitivity and specificity for both TVS and MRI in most locations assessed. According to QUADAS-2, the quality of the included studies was considered good for most domains.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic performance of TVS and MRI is similar for detecting DIE involving rectosigmoid, uterosacral ligaments and rectovaginal septum. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cagliari, Policlinico Universitario Duilio Casula, Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy.Department of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria (A.O.U.), Monserrato, Italy.Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction, Institut Universitari Dexeus, Barcelona, Spain.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cagliari, Policlinico Universitario Duilio Casula, Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy.Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction, Institut Universitari Dexeus, Barcelona, Spain.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cagliari, Policlinico Universitario Duilio Casula, Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, School of Medicine, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review

Language

eng

PubMed ID

29154402

Citation

Guerriero, S, et al. "Transvaginal Ultrasound Vs Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Diagnosing Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis." Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology : the Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 51, no. 5, 2018, pp. 586-595.
Guerriero S, Saba L, Pascual MA, et al. Transvaginal ultrasound vs magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing deep infiltrating endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(5):586-595.
Guerriero, S., Saba, L., Pascual, M. A., Ajossa, S., Rodriguez, I., Mais, V., & Alcazar, J. L. (2018). Transvaginal ultrasound vs magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing deep infiltrating endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology : the Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 51(5), pp. 586-595. doi:10.1002/uog.18961.
Guerriero S, et al. Transvaginal Ultrasound Vs Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Diagnosing Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(5):586-595. PubMed PMID: 29154402.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Transvaginal ultrasound vs magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing deep infiltrating endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. AU - Guerriero,S, AU - Saba,L, AU - Pascual,M A, AU - Ajossa,S, AU - Rodriguez,I, AU - Mais,V, AU - Alcazar,J L, PY - 2017/07/07/received PY - 2017/11/08/revised PY - 2017/11/10/accepted PY - 2017/11/21/pubmed PY - 2018/10/20/medline PY - 2017/11/21/entrez KW - MRI KW - TVS KW - deep infiltrating endometriosis KW - magnetic resonance imaging KW - transvaginal ultrasound SP - 586 EP - 595 JF - Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology JO - Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol VL - 51 IS - 5 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of studies comparing the accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosing deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) including only studies in which patients underwent both techniques. METHODS: An extensive search was carried out in PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science for papers from January 1989 to October 2016 comparing TVS and MRI in DIE. Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported on the use of TVS and MRI in the same set of patients for the preoperative detection of endometriosis in pelvic locations in women with clinical suspicion of DIE and using surgical data as a reference standard. Quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. A random-effects model was used to determine pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). RESULTS: Of 375 citations identified, six studies (n = 424) were considered eligible. For MRI in the detection of DIE in the rectosigmoid, pooled sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90), specificity was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.83-0.99), LR+ was 18.4 (95% CI, 4.7-72.4), LR- was 0.16 (95% CI, 0.11-0.24) and DOR was 116 (95% CI, 23-585). For TVS in the detection of DIE in the rectosigmoid, pooled sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.68-0.94), specificity was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.85-0.99), LR+ was 20.4 (95% CI, 4.7-88.5), LR- was 0.16 (95% CI, 0.07-0.38) and DOR was 127 (95% CI, 14-1126). For MRI in the detection of DIE in the rectovaginal septum, pooled sensitivity was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.51-0.79), specificity was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99), LR+ was 22.5 (95% CI, 6.7-76.2), LR- was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.23-0.52) and DOR was 65 (95% CI, 21-204). For TVS in the detection of DIE in the rectovaginal septum, pooled sensitivity was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.26-0.86), specificity was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.94-0.99), LR+ was 23.5 (95% CI, 9.1-60.5), LR- was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.18-0.97) and DOR was 56 (95% CI, 11-275). For MRI in the detection of DIE in the uterosacral ligaments, pooled sensitivity was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55-0.82), specificity was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-0.97), LR+ was 10.4 (95% CI, 5.1-21.2), LR- was 0.32 (95% CI, 0.20-0.51) and DOR was 32 (95% CI, 12-85). For TVS in the detection of DIE in the uterosacral ligaments, pooled sensitivity was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.55-0.77), specificity was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.73-0.93), LR+ was 4.8 (95% CI, 2.6-9.0), LR- was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.29-0.50) and DOR was 12 (95% CI, 7-24). Confidence intervals of pooled sensitivities, specificities and DOR were wide for both techniques in all the locations considered. Heterogeneity was moderate or high for sensitivity and specificity for both TVS and MRI in most locations assessed. According to QUADAS-2, the quality of the included studies was considered good for most domains. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of TVS and MRI is similar for detecting DIE involving rectosigmoid, uterosacral ligaments and rectovaginal septum. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. SN - 1469-0705 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/29154402/Transvaginal_ultrasound_vs_magnetic_resonance_imaging_for_diagnosing_deep_infiltrating_endometriosis:_systematic_review_and_meta_analysis_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.18961 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -