| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns
Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St., Central Radiology
Viewing Area, Rm. 117, Baltimore, MD 21287.
2 Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine,
Baltimore, MD 21287.
3 Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg
School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St., Baltimore, MD 21205.
OBJECTIVE. We sought to summarize systematically the published evidence describing the accuracy of contrast-enhanced helical CT for diagnosing pulmonary embolism.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. We selected all systematic reviews published before December 2003 that evaluated the accuracy of CT angiography for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. We also selected all prospective studies from the same time period in the primary literature in which all subjects underwent both CT and conventional angiography, the latter being considered the reference standard. Articles were identified through a computerized MEDLINE search and by other means. The quality and content of each article were evaluated independently by pairs of researchers.
RESULTS. Six systematic reviews and eight primary studies were selected. The combined sensitivities of CT for detecting pulmonary embolism ranged from 66% to 93% across the systematic reviews and the combined specificities ranged from 89% to 97%. Only one of the reviews reported a combined sensitivity of greater than 90%. Among the eight primary studies, the sensitivities ranged from 45% to 100% and specificities ranged from 78% to 100%. Only three of the eight primary studies reported a sensitivity greater than 90%. None of the primary studies used scanners with four or more detectors.
CONCLUSION. A systematic literature review revealed a wide range of reported sensitivities, only a minority of which exceeded 90%. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity reported by systematic literature reviews should be interpreted with caution because of potential selection bias and heterogeneity in the reviewed studies. Accuracy studies of recent generations of MDCT scanners are not yet available despite the current dissemination of this technology.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. A. Ghofrani, M. W. Wilkins, and S. Rich Uncertainties in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Circulation, September 9, 2008; 118(11): 1195 - 1201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Glassroth Imaging of Pulmonary Embolism: Too Much of a Good Thing? JAMA, December 19, 2007; 298(23): 2788 - 2789. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Siragusa, A. Malato, F. Falaschi, F. Porro, R. Anastasio, A. Giarratano, L. L. Coco, M. C. Buonanno, E. Maggi, M. A. Bressan, et al. Deferral of assessment of pulmonary embolism Haematologica, March 1, 2007; 92(3): 410 - 413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. B. Segal, J. Eng, L. J. Tamariz, and E. B. Bass Review of the Evidence on Diagnosis of Deep Venous Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism Ann. Fam. Med, January 1, 2007; 5(1): 63 - 73. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. D. Raptopoulos, P. B. Boiselle, N. Michailidis, J. Handwerker, A. Sabir, J. A. Edlow, I. Pedrosa, and J. B. Kruskal MDCT Angiography of Acute Chest Pain: Evaluation of ECG-Gated and Nongated Techniques Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2006; 186(6_Supplement_2): S346 - S356. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. G. Ravenel, P. Costello, U. J. Schoepf, J. Eng, and J. B. Segal CT in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2005; 184(5): 1707 - 1708. [Full Text]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
