ScholarLens Back to search
2018•MedicineOpen access

Meta-analysis of computed tomography angiography versus magnetic resonance angiography for intracranial aneurysm

Xiaodan Chen, Yun Liu, Huazhang Tong, Yonghai Dong, Dongyang Ma, Lei Xu, Cheng‐Ta Yang

Open full text 58 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Whether the diagnosis value of computed tomography angiography (CTA) for intracranial aneurysm is in accordance with magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) remains inconclusive. This meta-analysis aims to synthesize relevant studies to compare the diagnostic efficacies of the 2 methods. METHODS: Potentially relevant studies were selected through PubMed, Embase, Wanfang, Chongqing VIP, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases by using the core terms "computer tomography angiography" (CTA) and "magnetic resonance angiography" (MRA) and "intracranial aneurysm*" in the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the articles. Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) was utilized to evaluate the quality. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were count. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC) and area under the curve (AUC) were used to summarize the overall diagnostic performance. Statistical analyses were performed by Stata version 12.0 and MetaDisc 1.4 software. RESULTS: Ten articles were identified in this current paper. For CTA, the pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters for intracranial aneurysm were as follows: sensitivity, 0.84 (95%CI = 0.81-0.86); specificity, 0.85 (95%CI = 0.79-0.89); PLR, 4.09 (95%CI = 2.45-6.81); NLR, 0.18 (95%CI = 0.11-0.28); DOR, 23.74 (95%CI = 10.49-53.74); AUC, 0.90, respectively. For MRA, the pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters for intracranial aneurysm were as follows: sensitivity, 0.80 (95%CI = 0.77-0.83); specificity, 0.87 (95%CI = 0.82-0.91); PLR, 3.61 (95%CI = 1.72-7.55); NLR; 0.27 (95%CI = 0.21-0.35); DOR, 16.77 (95%CI = 7.38-38.11); AUC, 0.87, respectively. No significant difference was found the AUC value between CTA and MRA for intracranial aneurysm (Z = 0.828, P > .05). CONCLUSION: This comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrated that the diagnosis value of CTA was in accordance with MRA for intracranial aneurysm. However, considering the limitation of sample size, the results should be treated with caution.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: Whether the diagnosis value of computed tomography angiography (CTA) for intracranial aneurysm is in accordance with magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) remains inconclusive. This meta-analysis aims to synthesize relevant studies to compare the diagnostic efficacies of the 2 methods. METHODS: Potentially relevant studies were selected through PubMed, Embase, Wanfang, Chongqing VIP, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases by using the core terms "computer tomography angiography" (CTA) and "magnetic resonance angiography" (MRA) and "intracranial aneurysm*" in the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the articles. Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) was utilized to evaluate the quality. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were count. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC) and area under the curve (AUC) were used to summarize the overall diagnostic performance. Statistical analyses were performed by Stata version 12.0 and MetaDisc 1.4 software. RESULTS: Ten articles were identified in this current paper. For CTA, the pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters for intracranial aneurysm were as follows: sensitivity, 0.84 (95%CI = 0.81-0.86); specificity, 0.85 (95%CI = 0.79-0.89); PLR, 4.09 (95%CI = 2.45-6.81); NLR, 0.18 (95%CI = 0.11-0.28); DOR, 23.74 (95%CI = 10.49-53.74); AUC, 0.90, respectively. For MRA, the pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters for intracranial aneurysm were as follows: sensitivity, 0.80 (95%CI = 0.77-0.83); specificity, 0.87 (95%CI = 0.82-0.91); PLR, 3.61 (95%CI = 1.72-7.55); NLR; 0.27 (95%CI = 0.21-0.35); DOR, 16.77 (95%CI = 7.38-38.11); AUC, 0.87, respectively. No significant difference was found the AUC value between CTA and MRA for intracranial aneurysm (Z = 0.828, P > .05). CONCLUSION: This comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrated that the diagnosis value of CTA was in accordance with MRA for intracranial aneurysm. However, considering the limitation of sample size, the results should be treated with caution.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 58 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: Whether the diagnosis value of computed tomography angiography (CTA) for intracranial aneurysm is in accordance with magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) remains inconclusive. This meta-analysis aims to synthesize relevant studies to compare the diagnostic efficacies of the 2 methods. METHODS: Potentially relevant studies were selected through PubMed, Embase, Wanfang, Chongqing VIP, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases by using the core terms "computer tomography angiography" (CTA) and "magnetic resonance angiography" (MRA) and "intracranial aneurysm*" in the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the articles. Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) was utilized to evaluate the quality. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were count. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC) and area under the curve (AUC) were used to summarize the overall diagnostic performance. Statistical analyses were performed by Stata version 12.0 and MetaDisc 1.4 software. RESULTS: Ten articles were identified in this current paper. For CTA, the pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters for intracranial aneurysm were as follows: sensitivity, 0.84 (95%CI = 0.81-0.86); specificity, 0.85 (95%CI = 0.79-0.89); PLR, 4.09 (95%CI = 2.45-6.81); NLR, 0.18 (95%CI = 0.11-0.28); DOR, 23.74 (95%CI = 10.49-53.74); AUC, 0.90, respectively. For MRA, the pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters for intracranial aneurysm were as follows: sensitivity, 0.80 (95%CI = 0.77-0.83); specificity, 0.87 (95%CI = 0.82-0.91); PLR, 3.61 (95%CI = 1.72-7.55); NLR; 0.27 (95%CI = 0.21-0.35); DOR, 16.77 (95%CI = 7.38-38.11); AUC, 0.87, respectively. No significant difference was found the AUC value between CTA and MRA for intracranial aneurysm (Z = 0.828, P > .05). CONCLUSION: This comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrated that the diagnosis value of CTA was in accordance with MRA for intracranial aneurysm. However, considering the limitation of sample size, the results should be treated with caution.

Key concepts: Medicine, Aneurysm, Diagnostic odds ratio, Radiology, Receiver operating characteristic, Computed tomography angiography, Angiography, Magnetic resonance angiography

Related papers

Related paper 1Related paper 2Related paper 3
Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Meta-analysis of computed tomography angiography versus magnetic resonance angiography for intracranial aneurysm — Research Paper | ScholarLens