TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography in patients with gout
T2 - A meta-analysis
AU - Lee, Young Ho
AU - Song, Gwan Gyu
PY - 2017/8/1
Y1 - 2017/8/1
N2 - Objective This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for patients with gout. Methods We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, and performed a meta-analysis on the diagnostic accuracy of DECT in patients with gout. Results A total of eight studies including 510 patients with gout and 268 controls (patients with non-gout inflammatory arthritis) were available for the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of DECT were 84.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.3–87.7) and 93.7% (93.0–96.3), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 9.882 (6.122–15.95), 0.163 (0.097–0.272), and 78.10 (31.14–195.84), respectively. The area under the curve of DECT was 0.956 and the Q* index was 0.889, indicating a high diagnostic accuracy. Some between-study heterogeneity was found in the meta-analyses. However, there was no evidence of a threshold effect (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.419; p = 0.035). In addition, meta-regression showed that the sample size, study design, and diagnostic criteria were not sources of heterogeneity, and subgroup meta-analyses did not change the overall diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions Our meta-analysis of published studies demonstrates that DECT has a high diagnostic accuracy and plays an important role in the diagnosis of gout.
AB - Objective This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for patients with gout. Methods We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, and performed a meta-analysis on the diagnostic accuracy of DECT in patients with gout. Results A total of eight studies including 510 patients with gout and 268 controls (patients with non-gout inflammatory arthritis) were available for the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of DECT were 84.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.3–87.7) and 93.7% (93.0–96.3), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 9.882 (6.122–15.95), 0.163 (0.097–0.272), and 78.10 (31.14–195.84), respectively. The area under the curve of DECT was 0.956 and the Q* index was 0.889, indicating a high diagnostic accuracy. Some between-study heterogeneity was found in the meta-analyses. However, there was no evidence of a threshold effect (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.419; p = 0.035). In addition, meta-regression showed that the sample size, study design, and diagnostic criteria were not sources of heterogeneity, and subgroup meta-analyses did not change the overall diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions Our meta-analysis of published studies demonstrates that DECT has a high diagnostic accuracy and plays an important role in the diagnosis of gout.
KW - DECT
KW - Diagnostic accuracy
KW - Gout
KW - Meta-analysis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85016262835&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85016262835&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2017.03.002
DO - 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2017.03.002
M3 - Review article
C2 - 28372824
AN - SCOPUS:85016262835
VL - 47
SP - 95
EP - 101
JO - Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism
JF - Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism
SN - 0049-0172
IS - 1
ER -