Evaluation of adherence to STARD for Abstracts in a diverse sample of diagnostic accuracy abstracts published in 2012 and 2019 reveals suboptimal reporting practices.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the completeness of reporting in a sample of abstracts on diagnostic accuracy studies before and after the release of STARD for Abstracts in 2017. METHODS: We included 278 diagnostic accuracy abstracts published in 2012 (N=138) and 2019 (N=140) and indexed in EMBASE. We analyzed their adherence to 10 items of the 11-item STARD for Abstracts checklist and explored variability in reporting across abstract characteristics using multivariable Poisson modeling. RESULTS: Most of the 278 abstracts (75%) were published in discipline-specific journals, with a median impact factor of 2.9 (IQR: 1.9-3.7). The majority (41%) of abstracts reported on imaging tests. Overall, a mean of 5.4/10 (SD: 1.4) STARD for Abstracts items was reported (range: 1.2-9.7). Items reported in less than one-third of abstracts included 'eligible patient demographics' (24%), 'setting of recruitment' (30%), 'method of enrolment' (18%), 'estimates of precision for accuracy measures' (26%), and 'protocol registration details' (4%). We observed substantial variability in reporting across several abstract characteristics, with higher adherence associated with the use of a structured abstract, no journal limit for abstract word count, abstract word count above the median, one-gate enrolment design, and prospective data collection. There was no evidence of an increase in the number of reported items between 2012 and 2019 (5.2 vs. 5.5 items; adjusted reporting ratio 1.04 [95%CI: 0.98-1.10]). CONCLUSION: This sample of diagnostic accuracy abstracts revealed suboptimal reporting practices, without improvement between 2012 and 2019. The test evaluation field could benefit from targeted knowledge translation strategies to improve completeness of reporting in abstracts.

Canadian radiology: 2024 update.

Radiology in Canada is advancing through innovations in clinical practices and research methodologies. Recent developments focus on refining evidence-based practice guidelines, exploring innovative imaging techniques and enhancing diagnostic processes through artificial intelligence. Within the global radiology community, Canadian institutions play an important role by engaging in international collaborations, such as with the American College of Radiology to refine implementation of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System for ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Additionally, researchers have participated in multidisciplinary collaborations to evaluate the performance of artificial intelligence-driven diagnostic tools for chronic liver disease and pediatric brain tumors. Beyond clinical radiology, efforts extend to addressing gender disparities in the field, improving educational practices, and enhancing the environmental sustainability of radiology departments. These advancements highlight Canada's role in the global radiology community, showcasing a commitment to improving patient outcomes and advancing the field through research and innovation. This update underscores the importance of continued collaboration and innovation to address emerging challenges and further enhance the quality and efficacy of radiology practices worldwide.

Screening for lung cancer with computed tomography: protocol for systematic reviews for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in Canada, and because early cancers are often asymptomatic screening aims to prevent mortality by detecting cancer earlier when treatment is more likely to be curative. These reviews will inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for lung cancer. METHODS: We will update the review on the benefits and harms of screening with CT conducted for the task force in 2015 and perform de novo reviews on the comparative effects between (i) trial-based selection criteria and use of risk prediction models and (ii) trial-based nodule classification and different nodule classification systems and on patients' values and preferences. We will search Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (for questions on benefits and harms from 2015; comparative effects from 2012) and Medline, Scopus, and EconLit (for values and preferences from 2012) via peer-reviewed search strategies, clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. Two reviewers will screen all citations (including those in the previous review) and base inclusion decisions on consensus or arbitration by another reviewer. For benefits (i.e., all-cause and cancer-specific mortality and health-related quality of life) and harms (i.e., overdiagnosis, false positives, incidental findings, psychosocial harms from screening, and major complications and mortality from invasive procedures as a result of screening), we will include studies of adults in whom lung cancer is not suspected. We will include randomized controlled trials comparing CT screening with no screening or alternative screening modalities (e.g., chest radiography) or strategies (e.g., CT using different screening intervals, classification systems, and/or patient selection via risk models or biomarkers); non-randomized studies, including modeling studies, will be included for the comparative effects between trial-based and other selection criteria or nodule classification methods. For harms (except overdiagnosis) we will also include non-randomized and uncontrolled studies. For values and preferences, the study design may be any quantitative design that either directly or indirectly measures outcome preferences on outcomes pertaining to lung cancer screening. We will only include studies conducted in Very High Human Development Countries and having full texts in English or French. Data will be extracted by one reviewer with verification by another, with the exception of result data on mortality and cancer incidence (for calculating overdiagnosis) where duplicate extraction will occur. If two or more studies report on the same comparison and it is deemed suitable, we will pool continuous data using a mean difference or standardized mean difference, as applicable, and binary data using relative risks and a DerSimonian and Laird model unless events are rare (< 1%) where we will pool odds ratios using Peto's method or (if zero events) the reciprocal of the opposite treatment arm size correction. For pooling proportions, we will apply suitable transformation (logit or arcsine) depending on the proportions of events. If meta-analysis is not undertaken we will synthesize the data descriptively, considering clinical and methodological differences. For each outcome, two reviewers will independently assess within- and across-study risk of bias and rate the certainty of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), and reach consensus. DISCUSSION: Since 2015, additional trials and longer follow-ups or additional data (e.g., harms, specific patient populations) from previously published trials have been published that will improve our understanding of the benefits and harms of screening. The systematic review of values and preferences will allow fulsome insights that will inform the balance of benefits and harms. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022378858.

Heterogeneity in Systematic Reviews of Medical Imaging Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Systematic reviews of medical imaging diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies are affected by between-study heterogeneity due to a range of factors. Failure to appropriately assess the extent and causes of heterogeneity compromises the interpretability of systematic review findings. Objective: To assess how heterogeneity has been examined in medical imaging DTA studies. Evidence Review: The PubMed database was searched for systematic reviews of medical imaging DTA studies that performed a meta-analysis. The search was limited to the 40 journals with highest impact factor in the radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging category in the InCites Journal Citation Reports of 2021 to reach a sample size of 200 to 300 included studies. Descriptive analysis was performed to characterize the imaging modality, target condition, type of meta-analysis model used, strategies for evaluating heterogeneity, and sources of heterogeneity identified. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess whether any factors were associated with at least 1 source of heterogeneity being identified in the included meta-analyses. Methodological quality evaluation was not performed. Data analysis occurred from October to December 2022. Findings: A total of 242 meta-analyses involving a median (range) of 987 (119-441 510) patients across a diverse range of disease categories and imaging modalities were included. The extent of heterogeneity was adequately described (ie, whether it was absent, low, moderate, or high) in 220 studies (91%) and was most commonly assessed using the I2 statistic (185 studies [76%]) and forest plots (181 studies [75%]). Heterogeneity was rated as moderate to high in 191 studies (79%). Of all included meta-analyses, 122 (50%) performed subgroup analysis and 87 (36%) performed meta-regression. Of the 242 studies assessed, 189 (78%) included 10 or more primary studies. Of these 189 studies, 60 (32%) did not perform meta-regression or subgroup analysis. Reasons for being unable to investigate sources of heterogeneity included inadequate reporting of primary study characteristics and a low number of included primary studies. Use of meta-regression was associated with identification of at least 1 source of variability (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.11-3.23; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of assessment of heterogeneity in medical imaging DTA meta-analyses, most meta-analyses were impacted by a moderate to high level of heterogeneity, presenting interpretive challenges. These findings suggest that, despite the development and availability of more rigorous statistical models, heterogeneity appeared to be incomplete, inconsistently evaluated, or methodologically questionable in many cases, which lessened the interpretability of the analyses performed; comprehensive heterogeneity assessment should be addressed at the author level by improving personal familiarity with appropriate statistical methodology for assessing heterogeneity and involving biostatisticians and epidemiologists in study design, as well as at the editorial level, by mandating adherence to methodologic standards in primary DTA studies and DTA meta-analyses.

Test characteristics of point-of-care ultrasonography in patients with acute kidney injury.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury is a common disorder that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Point-of-care ultrasonography (PoCUS) is an imaging modality performed at the bedside and is used to assess for obstructive causes of acute kidney injury. Little is known about the test characteristics of PoCUS in patients with acute kidney injury. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to describe the test characteristics of PoCUS for the detection of hydronephrosis in patients presenting with acute kidney injury at our centre. Our secondary objective was to describe the current rate of use of PoCUS for this indication. RESULTS: In total, 7873 patients were identified between June 1, 2019 and April 30, 2021, with 4611 meeting inclusion criteria. Of these, 94 patients (2%) underwent PoCUS, and 65 patients underwent both PoCUS and reference standard, for a total of 124 kidneys included in our diagnostic accuracy analysis. The prevalence of hydronephrosis in our cohort was 33% (95% CI 25-41%). PoCUS had a sensitivity of 85% (95% CI 71-94%) and specificity of 78% (95% CI 68-87%) for the detection of hydronephrosis. CONCLUSION: We describe the test characteristics of PoCUS for the detection of hydronephrosis in a cohort of patients with acute kidney injury. The low uptake of this test presents an opportunity for quality improvement work to increase its use for this indication.

LI-RADS CT and MRI Ancillary Feature Association with Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Malignancy: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.

Background The independent contribution of each Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) CT or MRI ancillary feature (AF) has not been established. Purpose To evaluate the association of LI-RADS AFs with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and malignancy while adjusting for LI-RADS major features through an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Materials and Methods Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus were searched from January 2014 to January 2022 for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI for HCC using LI-RADS version 2014, 2017, or 2018. Using a one-step approach, IPD across studies were pooled. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were derived from multivariable logistic regression models of each AF combined with major features except threshold growth (excluded because of infrequent reporting). Liver observation clustering was addressed at the study and participant levels through random intercepts. Risk of bias was assessed using a composite reference standard and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Results Twenty studies comprising 3091 observations (2456 adult participants; mean age, 59 years ± 11 [SD]; 1849 [75.3%] men) were included. In total, 89% (eight of nine) of AFs favoring malignancy were associated with malignancy and/or HCC, 80% (four of five) of AFs favoring HCC were associated with HCC, and 57% (four of seven) of AFs favoring benignity were negatively associated with HCC and/or malignancy. Nonenhancing capsule (OR = 3.50 [95% CI: 1.53, 8.01]) had the strongest association with HCC. Diffusion restriction (OR = 14.45 [95% CI: 9.82, 21.27]) and mild-moderate T2 hyperintensity (OR = 10.18 [95% CI: 7.17, 14.44]) had the strongest association with malignancy. The strongest negative associations with HCC were parallels blood pool enhancement (OR = 0.07 [95% CI: 0.01, 0.49]) and marked T2 hyperintensity (OR = 0.18 [95% CI: 0.07, 0.45]). Seventeen studies (85%) had a high risk of bias. Conclusion Most LI-RADS AFs were independently associated with HCC, malignancy, or benignity as intended when adjusting for major features. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Crivellaro in this issue.

Multiparametric Versus Biparametric Prostate MRI: Comparison of NPV for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

In this single-center retrospective study, multiparametric and biparametric prostate MRI showed no statistically significant difference in NPV for clinically significant prostate cancer, including in subgroups of patients on active surveillance and with no prior prostate cancer history.

Impact of Size Thresholds on the Diagnosis of Incidental Adrenal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Preferred size-threshold recommendations for management of incidental adrenal lesions remain controversial. PURPOSE: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of different size thresholds for detecting malignancy in patients with incidental adrenal lesions on imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and the gray literature, covering the period from inception to September 2021, was performed. Studies with >10 patients evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of imaging size thresholds for detecting malignancy in patients with incidental adrenal lesions and no prior history of cancer were included. Study, clinical, imaging, and accuracy data for eligible studies were independently acquired by two reviewers. Primary meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate mixed-effects regression model. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. RESULTS: From 2,690 citations, 40 studies (9,794 patients with mean age ranging from 41 to 66 years) were included. Most (36 of 40) were retrospective single-center studies. CT with or without MRI served as the index test(s). Sensitivity and specificity values, respectively, by size threshold used in the included studies were as follows: 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74%-91%) and 39% (95% CI 23%-57%) for 3-cm thresholds; 85% (95% CI 78%-90%) and 75% (95% CI 62%-85%) for 4-cm thresholds; 70% (95% CI 56%-81%) and 74% (95% CI 59%-85%) for 5-cm thresholds; and 75% (95% CI 67%-82%) and 77% (95% CI 62%-87%) for 6-cm thresholds. No cause for variability in sensitivity or specificity was identified on subgroup analysis of the 4-cm threshold. Nearly half of the studies (19 of 40) had at least one QUADAS-2 domain with a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: A 4-cm size threshold demonstrates the highest combined sensitivity and specificity, with a preserved specificity compared with higher size thresholds, but with a trend toward improved sensitivity. Future research reevaluating 4-5 cm size thresholds while excluding characteristically benign lesions by imaging may help redefine a size threshold that has improved specificity but preserved sensitivity, compared with the existing 4-cm threshold.

Comparative Performance of 2018 LI-RADS versus Modified LIRADS (mLI-RADS): An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: LI-RADS version 2018 (v2018) is used for non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A recently proposed modification (known as mLI-RADS) demonstrated improved sensitivity while maintaining specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of LI-RADS category 5 (definite HCC) for HCC. However, mLI-RADS requires multicenter validation. PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of v2018 and mLI-RADS for liver lesions in a large, heterogeneous, multi-national cohort of patients at risk for HCC. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review and meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD) [Study Protocol: https://osf.io/duys4]. POPULATION: 2223 observations from 1817 patients (includes all LI-RADS categories; females = 448, males = 1361, not reported = 8) at elevated risk for developing HCC (based on LI-RADS population criteria) from 12 retrospective studies. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T and 3T; complete liver MRI with gadoxetate disodium, including axial T2w images and dynamic axial fat-suppressed T1w images precontrast and in the arterial, portal venous, transitional, and hepatobiliary phases. Diffusion-weighted imaging was used when available. ASSESSMENT: Liver observations were categorized using v2018 and mLI-RADS. The diagnostic performance of each system's category 5 (LR-5 and mLR-5) for HCC were compared. STATISTICAL TESTS: The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 (QUADAS-2 was applied to determine risk of bias and applicability. Diagnostic performances were assessed using the likelihood ratio test for sensitivity and specificity and the Wald test for PPV. The significance level was P < 0.05. RESULTS: 17% (2/12) of the studies were considered low risk of bias (244 liver observations; 164 patients). When compared to v2018, mLR-5 demonstrated higher sensitivity (61.3% vs. 46.5%, P < 0.001), similar PPV (85.3% vs. 86.3%, P = 0.89), and similar specificity (85.8% vs. 90.8%, P = 0.16) for HCC. DATA CONCLUSION: This study confirms mLR-5 has higher sensitivity than LR-5 for HCC identification, while maintaining similar PPV and specificity, validating the mLI-RADS proposal in a heterogeneous, international cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Percentage of Pancreatic Cysts on MRI With a Pancreatic Carcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are frequent on MRI and are thought to be associated with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) necessitating long-term surveillance based on older studies suffering from selection bias. PURPOSE: To establish the percentage of patients with PCLs on MRI with a present or future PDAC. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review, meta-analysis. POPULATION: Adults with PCLs on MRI and a present or future diagnosis of PDAC were eligible. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus were searched to April 2022 (PROSPERO:CRD42022320502). Studies limited to PCLs not requiring surveillance, <100 patients, or those with a history/genetic risk of PDAC were excluded. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: ≥1.5 T with ≥1 T2-weighted sequence. ASSESSMENT: Two investigators extracted data, with discrepancies resolved by a third. QUADAS-2 assessed bias. PDAC was diagnosed using a composite reference standard. STATISTICAL TESTS: A meta-analysis of proportions was performed at the patient-level with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Eight studies with 1289 patients contributed to the percentage of patients with a present diagnosis of PDAC, and 10 studies with 3422 patients to the percentage with a future diagnosis. Of patients with PCLs on MRI, 14.8% (95% CI 2.4-34.9) had a PDAC at initial MRI, which decreased to 6.0% (2.2-11.3) for studies at low risk of bias. For patients without PDAC on initial MRI, 2.0% (1.1-3.2) developed PDAC during surveillance, similar for low risk of bias studies at 1.9% (0.7-3.6), with no clear trend of increased PDAC for longer surveillance durations. For patients without worrisome features or high-risk stigmata, 0.9% (0.1-2.2) developed PDAC during surveillance. Of 10, eight studies had a median surveillance ≥3 years (range 3-157 months). Sources of bias included retrospectively limiting PCLs to those with histopathology and inconsistent surveillance protocols. DATA CONCLUSION: A low percentage of patients with PCLs on MRI develop PDAC while on surveillance. The first MRI revealing a PCL should be scrutinized for PDAC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis of LR-5 in LI-RADS Version 2018 versus Revised LI-RADS for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Diagnosis.

Background A simplification of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 (v2018), revised LI-RADS (rLI-RADS), has been proposed for imaging-based diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Single-site data suggest that rLI-RADS category 5 (rLR-5) improves sensitivity while maintaining positive predictive value (PPV) of the LI-RADS v2018 category 5 (LR-5), which indicates definite HCC. Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of LI-RADS v2018 and rLI-RADS in a multicenter data set of patients at risk for HCC by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis. Materials and Methods Multiple databases were searched for studies published from January 2014 to January 2022 that evaluated the diagnostic performance of any version of LI-RADS at CT or MRI for diagnosing HCC. An individual patient data meta-analysis method was applied to observations from the identified studies. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 was applied to determine study risk of bias. Observations were categorized according to major features and either LI-RADS v2018 or rLI-RADS assignments. Diagnostic accuracies of category 5 for each system were calculated using generalized linear mixed models and compared using the likelihood ratio test for sensitivity and the Wald test for PPV. Results Twenty-four studies, including 3840 patients and 4727 observations, were analyzed. The median observation size was 19 mm (IQR, 11-30 mm). rLR-5 showed higher sensitivity compared with LR-5 (70.6% [95% CI: 60.7, 78.9] vs 61.3% [95% CI: 45.9, 74.7]; P < .001), with similar PPV (90.7% vs 92.3%; P = .55). In studies with low risk of bias (n = 4; 1031 observations), rLR-5 also achieved a higher sensitivity than LR-5 (72.3% [95% CI: 63.9, 80.1] vs 66.9% [95% CI: 58.2, 74.5]; P = .02), with similar PPV (83.1% vs 88.7%; P = .47). Conclusion rLR-5 achieved a higher sensitivity for identifying HCC than LR-5 while maintaining a comparable PPV at 90% or more, matching the results presented in the original rLI-RADS study. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Sirlin and Chernyak in this issue.

Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Open Science Practices at Imaging Journals: A Meta-Research Study.

Objective: To evaluate open science policies of imaging journals, and compliance to these policies in published articles. Methods: From imaging journals listed we extracted open science policy details: protocol registration, reporting guidelines, funding, ethics and conflicts of interest (COI), data sharing, and open access publishing. The 10 most recently published studies from each journal were assessed to determine adherence to these policies. We calculated the proportion of open science policies into an Open Science Score (OSS) for all journals and articles. We evaluated relationships between OSS and journal/article level variables. Results: 82 journals/820 articles were included. The OSS of journals and articles was 58.3% and 31.8%, respectively. Of the journals, 65.9% had registration and 78.1% had reporting guideline policies. 79.3% of journals were members of COPE, 81.7% had plagiarism policies, 100% required disclosure of funding, and 97.6% required disclosure of COI and ethics approval. 81.7% had data sharing policies and 15.9% were fully open access. 7.8% of articles had a registered protocol, 8.4% followed a reporting guideline, 77.4% disclosed funding, 88.7% disclosed COI, and 85.6% reported ethics approval. 12.3% of articles shared their data. 51% of articles were available through open access or as a preprint. OSS was higher for journal with DOAJ membership (80% vs 54.2%; P < .0001). Impact factor was not correlated with journal OSS. Knowledge synthesis articles has a higher OSS scores (44.5%) than prospective/retrospective studies (32.6%, 30.0%, P < .0001). Conclusion: Imaging journals endorsed just over half of open science practices considered; however, the application of these practices at the article level was lower.

Best Practice for MRI Diagnostic Accuracy Research With Lessons and Examples from the LI-RADS Individual Participant Data Group.

Medical imaging diagnostic test accuracy research is strengthened by adhering to best practices for study design, data collection, data documentation, and study reporting. In this review, key elements of such research are discussed, and specific recommendations provided for optimizing diagnostic accuracy study execution to improve uniformity, minimize common sources of bias and avoid potential pitfalls. Examples are provided regarding study methodology and data collection practices based on insights gained by the liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) individual participant data group, who have evaluated raw data from numerous MRI diagnostic accuracy studies for risk of bias and data integrity. The goal of this review is to outline strategies for investigators to improve research practices, and to help reviewers and readers better contextualize a study's findings while understanding its limitations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

How to Critically Appraise and Interpret Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Accuracy: A User Guide.

Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies can provide the best available evidence to inform decisions regarding the use of a diagnostic test. In this guide, the authors provide a practical approach for clinicians to appraise diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews and apply their results to patient care. The first step is to identify an appropriate systematic review with a research question matching the clinical scenario. The user should evaluate the rigor of the review methods to evaluate its credibility (Did the review use clearly defined eligibility criteria, a comprehensive search strategy, structured data collection, risk of bias and applicability appraisal, and appropriate meta-analysis methods?). If the review is credible, the next step is to decide whether the diagnostic performance is adequate for clinical use (Do sensitivity and specificity estimates exceed the threshold that makes them useful in clinical practice? Are these estimates sufficiently precise? Is variability in the estimates of diagnostic accuracy across studies explained?). Diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews that are judged to be credible and provide diagnostic accuracy estimates with sufficient certainty and relevance are the most useful to inform patient care. This review discusses comparative, noncomparative, and emerging approaches to systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy using a clinical scenario and examples based on recent publications.

Prognostic Value of Cardiac MRI and FDG PET in Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background There is no consensus regarding the relative prognostic value of cardiac MRI and fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET in cardiac sarcoidosis. Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prognostic value of cardiac MRI and FDG PET for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in cardiac sarcoidosis. Materials and Methods In this systematic review, MEDLINE, Ovid Epub, CENTRAL, Embase, Emcare, and Scopus were searched from inception until January 2022. Studies that evaluated the prognostic value of cardiac MRI or FDG PET in adults with cardiac sarcoidosis were included. The primary outcome of MACE was assessed as a composite including death, ventricular arrhythmia, and heart failure hospitalization. Summary metrics were obtained using random-effects meta-analysis. Meta-regression was used to assess covariates. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies, or QUIPS, tool. Results Thirty-seven studies were included (3489 patients with mean follow-up of 3.1 years ± 1.5 [SD]); 29 studies evaluated MRI (2931 patients) and 17 evaluated FDG PET (1243 patients). Five studies directly compared MRI and PET in the same patients (276 patients). Left ventricular late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) at MRI and FDG uptake at PET were both predictive of MACE (odds ratio [OR], 8.0 [95% CI: 4.3, 15.0] [P < .001] and 2.1 [95% CI: 1.4, 3.2] [P < .001], respectively). At meta-regression, results varied by modality (P = .006). LGE (OR, 10.4 [95% CI: 3.5, 30.5]; P < .001) was also predictive of MACE when restricted to studies with direct comparison, whereas FDG uptake (OR, 1.9 [95% CI: 0.82, 4.4]; P = .13) was not. Right ventricular LGE and FDG uptake were also associated with MACE (OR, 13.1 [95% CI: 5.2, 33] [P < .001] and 4.1 [95% CI: 1.9, 8.9] [P < .001], respectively). Thirty-two studies were at risk for bias. Conclusion Left and right ventricular late gadolinium enhancement at cardiac MRI and fluorodeoxyglucose uptake at PET were predictive of major adverse cardiac events in cardiac sarcoidosis. Limitations include few studies with direct comparison and risk of bias. Systematic review registration no. CRD42021214776 (PROSPERO) © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article.