A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Diagnostic performance of noninvasive imaging using computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography for the detection of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Objective: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic value of noninvasive imaging methods computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET) in the detection of ovarian cancer (OC).

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Ovid were comprehensively searched from the date of inception to 31st, March, 2022. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+ LR), negative likelihood ratio (- LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) of summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results: Sixty-one articles including 4284 patients met the inclusion criteria of this study. Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of SROC with respective 95% CIs of CT on patient level were 0.83 (0.73, 0.90), 0.69 (0.54, 0.81), and 0.84 (0.80, 0.87). The overall sensitivity, specificity, SROC value with respective 95% CIs of MRI were 0.95 (0.91, 0.97),0.81 (0.76, 0.85), and 0.90 (0.87, 0.92) on patient level. Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, SROC value of PET/CT on patient level were 0.92 (0.88, 0.94), 0.88 (0.83, 0.92), and 0.96 (0.94, 0.97).

Conclusion: Noninvasive imaging modalities including CT, MRI, PET (PET/CT, PET/MRI) yielded favorable diagnostic performance in the detection of OC. Hybrid implement of different tools (PET/MRI) is more accurate for identifying metastatic OC.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12149-023-01856-7DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

sensitivity specificity
16
noninvasive imaging
12
sroc respective
12
respective 95%
12
patient level
12
diagnostic performance
8
computed tomography
8
tomography magnetic
8
magnetic resonance
8
resonance imaging
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!