» Articles » PMID: 35049166

Diagnostic Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Ultrasonography on the Detection of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Meta-analysis

Overview
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2022 Jan 20
PMID 35049166
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: : There is still a debate on which imaging method is the best to diagnose cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Accordingly, this study aimed to analyze the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US) on the detection of CSP based on current evidence in the literature.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Chinese Biomedical Documentation Service System, WanFang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched up to June 2020. The included studies were all comparisons of MRI and US in the diagnosis of CSP that adopted postoperative histological examination as the reference standard. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated for MRI and US.

Results: Thirteen studies were included, with a total sample size of 948 patients. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and AUC of MRI in diagnosing CSP were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.95), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75-0.89), 5.46 (95% CI, 3.70-8.05), 0.08 (95% CI, 0.06-0.11), and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.97), respectively; for US they were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.88), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.62-0.81), 3.06 (95% CI, 2.22-4.21), 0.23 (95% CI, 0.18-0.28), and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), respectively.

Conclusion: We found that both MRI and US effectively diagnosed CSP; however, MRI had a higher diagnostic performance in detecting CSP than US.

Citing Articles

MRI-based scoring model to predict massive hemorrhage during dilatation and curettage in patients with cesarean scar pregnancy.

Yang F, Yang X, Jing H, Wang X, Gong Z, Deng C Abdom Radiol (NY). 2023; 48(10):3195-3206.

PMID: 37358602 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-023-03968-0.

References
1.
Anant M, Paswan A, Jyoti C . Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy: The Lurking Danger in Post Cesarean Failed Medical Abortion. J Family Reprod Health. 2020; 13(4):223-227. PMC: 7264869. View

2.
Chang K, Wu W, Huang K, Jan W, Han D . Limb muscle quality and quantity in elderly adults with dynapenia but not sarcopenia: An ultrasound imaging study. Exp Gerontol. 2018; 108:54-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.exger.2018.03.019. View

3.
Liu D, Yang M, Wu Q . Application of ultrasonography in the diagnosis and treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy. Clin Chim Acta. 2018; 486:291-297. DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2018.08.012. View

4.
Litwicka K, Greco E . Caesarean scar pregnancy: a review of management options. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 25(6):456-61. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000023. View

5.
Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H . A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2015; 1(2):97-111. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.12. View