Computed tomography versus ultrasound for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Computed tomography versus ultrasound for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Authors: de Oliveira, Guilherme Strieder1 (AUTHOR), Torri, Giovanni Brondani2 (AUTHOR), Gandolfi, Fernanda Engel1 (AUTHOR), Dias, Adriano Basso3 (AUTHOR), Tse, Justin Ruey4 (AUTHOR), Francisco, Martina Zaguini4 (AUTHOR), Hochhegger, Bruno5 (AUTHOR), Altmayer, Stephan4 (AUTHOR) altmayer@stanford.edu
Source: European Radiology. Nov2024, Vol. 34 Issue 11, p6967-6979. 13p.
Subjects: Computed tomography, Sensitivity & specificity (Statistics), Confidence intervals, Secondary analysis, Database searching, Cholecystitis
Abstract: Objectives: Some patients undergo both computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) sequentially as part of the same evaluation for acute cholecystitis (AC). Our goal was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic performance of US and CT in the diagnosis of AC. Materials and methods: Databases were searched for relevant published studies through November 2023. The primary objective was to compare the head-to-head performance of US and CT using surgical intervention or clinical follow-up as the reference standard. For the secondary analysis, all individual US and CT studies were analyzed. The pooled sensitivities, specificities, and areas under the curve (AUCs) were determined along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The prevalence of imaging findings was also evaluated. Results: Sixty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. In the primary analysis of head-to-head studies (n = 5), CT had a pooled sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI, 78.4–88.2%) versus 79.0% (95% CI, 68.8–86.6%) of US (p = 0.44). The pooled specificity of CT was 94% (95% CI, 82.0–98.0%) versus 93.6% (95% CI, 79.4–98.2%) of US (p = 0.85). The concordance of positive or negative test between both modalities was 82.3% (95% CI, 72.1–89.4%). US and CT led to a positive change in management in only 4 to 8% of cases, respectively, when ordered sequentially after the other test. Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of CT is comparable to US for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis, with a high rate of concordance between the two modalities. Clinical relevance statement: A subsequent US after a positive or negative CT for suspected acute cholecystitis may be unnecessary in most cases. Key Points: When there is clinical suspicion of acute cholecystitis, patients will often undergo both CT and US. CT has similar sensitivity and specificity compared to US for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis. The concordance rate between CT and US for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis is 82.3%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of European Radiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: egs
DbLabel: Engineering Source
An: 180550089
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Computed tomography versus ultrasound for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22de+Oliveira%2C+Guilherme+Strieder%22">de Oliveira, Guilherme Strieder</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Torri%2C+Giovanni+Brondani%22">Torri, Giovanni Brondani</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gandolfi%2C+Fernanda+Engel%22">Gandolfi, Fernanda Engel</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dias%2C+Adriano+Basso%22">Dias, Adriano Basso</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tse%2C+Justin+Ruey%22">Tse, Justin Ruey</searchLink><relatesTo>4</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Francisco%2C+Martina+Zaguini%22">Francisco, Martina Zaguini</searchLink><relatesTo>4</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hochhegger%2C+Bruno%22">Hochhegger, Bruno</searchLink><relatesTo>5</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Altmayer%2C+Stephan%22">Altmayer, Stephan</searchLink><relatesTo>4</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> altmayer@stanford.edu</i>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22European+Radiology%22">European Radiology</searchLink>. Nov2024, Vol. 34 Issue 11, p6967-6979. 13p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computed+tomography%22">Computed tomography</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sensitivity+%26+specificity+%28Statistics%29%22">Sensitivity & specificity (Statistics)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Confidence+intervals%22">Confidence intervals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+analysis%22">Secondary analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Database+searching%22">Database searching</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cholecystitis%22">Cholecystitis</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Objectives: Some patients undergo both computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) sequentially as part of the same evaluation for acute cholecystitis (AC). Our goal was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic performance of US and CT in the diagnosis of AC. Materials and methods: Databases were searched for relevant published studies through November 2023. The primary objective was to compare the head-to-head performance of US and CT using surgical intervention or clinical follow-up as the reference standard. For the secondary analysis, all individual US and CT studies were analyzed. The pooled sensitivities, specificities, and areas under the curve (AUCs) were determined along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The prevalence of imaging findings was also evaluated. Results: Sixty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. In the primary analysis of head-to-head studies (n = 5), CT had a pooled sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI, 78.4–88.2%) versus 79.0% (95% CI, 68.8–86.6%) of US (p = 0.44). The pooled specificity of CT was 94% (95% CI, 82.0–98.0%) versus 93.6% (95% CI, 79.4–98.2%) of US (p = 0.85). The concordance of positive or negative test between both modalities was 82.3% (95% CI, 72.1–89.4%). US and CT led to a positive change in management in only 4 to 8% of cases, respectively, when ordered sequentially after the other test. Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of CT is comparable to US for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis, with a high rate of concordance between the two modalities. Clinical relevance statement: A subsequent US after a positive or negative CT for suspected acute cholecystitis may be unnecessary in most cases. Key Points: When there is clinical suspicion of acute cholecystitis, patients will often undergo both CT and US. CT has similar sensitivity and specificity compared to US for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis. The concordance rate between CT and US for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis is 82.3%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of European Radiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=180550089
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s00330-024-10783-8
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 6967
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Computed tomography
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sensitivity & specificity (Statistics)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Confidence intervals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Database searching
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cholecystitis
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Computed tomography versus ultrasound for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: de Oliveira, Guilherme Strieder
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Torri, Giovanni Brondani
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gandolfi, Fernanda Engel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dias, Adriano Basso
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tse, Justin Ruey
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Francisco, Martina Zaguini
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hochhegger, Bruno
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Altmayer, Stephan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Text: Nov2024
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 09387994
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 34
            – Type: issue
              Value: 11
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Radiology
              Type: main
ResultId 1