• Xiaodan Chen, Yun Liu, Huazhang Tong, Yonghai Dong, Dongyang Ma, Lei Xu, and Cheng Yang.
• Department of Science and Education, Jiangxi Provincial Cancer Hospital Cadre Wards of Neurology Medicine Department of Cancer Radiotherapy, Jiangxi Provincial People's Hospital Jiangxi Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanchang Nanhui Mental Health Center, Pudong New Area, Shanghai, China.
• Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 May 1; 97 (20): e10771.

BackgroundWhether the diagnosis value of computed tomography angiography (CTA) for intracranial aneurysm is in accordance with magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) remains inconclusive. This meta-analysis aims to synthesize relevant studies to compare the diagnostic efficacies of the 2 methods.MethodsPotentially relevant studies were selected through PubMed, Embase, Wanfang, Chongqing VIP, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases by using the core terms "computer tomography angiography" (CTA) and "magnetic resonance angiography" (MRA) and "intracranial aneurysm*" in the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the articles. Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) was utilized to evaluate the quality. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were count. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC) and area under the curve (AUC) were used to summarize the overall diagnostic performance. Statistical analyses were performed by Stata version 12.0 and MetaDisc 1.4 software.ResultsTen articles were identified in this current paper. For CTA, the pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters for intracranial aneurysm were as follows: sensitivity, 0.84 (95%CI = 0.81-0.86); specificity, 0.85 (95%CI = 0.79-0.89); PLR, 4.09 (95%CI = 2.45-6.81); NLR, 0.18 (95%CI = 0.11-0.28); DOR, 23.74 (95%CI = 10.49-53.74); AUC, 0.90, respectively. For MRA, the pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters for intracranial aneurysm were as follows: sensitivity, 0.80 (95%CI = 0.77-0.83); specificity, 0.87 (95%CI = 0.82-0.91); PLR, 3.61 (95%CI = 1.72-7.55); NLR; 0.27 (95%CI = 0.21-0.35); DOR, 16.77 (95%CI = 7.38-38.11); AUC, 0.87, respectively. No significant difference was found the AUC value between CTA and MRA for intracranial aneurysm (Z = 0.828, P > .05).ConclusionThis comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrated that the diagnosis value of CTA was in accordance with MRA for intracranial aneurysm. However, considering the limitation of sample size, the results should be treated with caution.

6 keywords...

hide…