How to Synthesise Evidence for Imaging Guidelines

L. Matowe, Fiona Jane Gilbert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

AIM: To provide guidance on how to gather and evaluate evidence from the literature on the efficacy of imaging, using as an example the assessment of the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis. This method was adopted for evaluating evidence for the musculoskeletal section of the 5th edition of the Royal College of Radiologists' (RCR) guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature published between 1966 and July 2001 was carried out. Eligible articles described studies in patients with suspected osteomyelitis and who were diagnosed using MRI. Search strategies were developed to identify relevant imaging studies. Studies included in the systematic review were selected using predefined criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and likelihood ratios for MRI reported in the studies were used to evaluate the value of the procedure in osteomyelitis. Where the above were not reported, they were calculated by the reviewers.

RESULTS: The average sensitivity of MRI in osteomyelitis was 91% (range 76-100%), the average specificity was 82% (range 65 - 96%), average accuracy was 88% (range 71-97%), and the average positive likelihood ratio was 7.8 (range 2.3-21.1). Four studies evaluated the use of MRI in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot, two in osteomyelitis of the lower extremities, while four each evaluated the use of MRI in vertebral osteomyelitis, in the diagnosis of any form of osteomyelitis, osteomyelitis in spinal cord-injured patients and in cranial osteomyelitis.

CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews of literature can be used to obtain evidence on the value of imaging procedures. The quality of the studies included in the review should always be considered when selecting studies to limit bias. In our example, MRI appears sensitive, specific and accurate in the diagnosis of osteomyetitis at different sites. (C) 2004 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. ALI rights reserved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)63-68
Number of pages5
JournalClinical Radiology
Volume59
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2004

Keywords

  • guidelines
  • osteomyelitis
  • DIABETIC FOOT
  • OSTEOMYELITIS
  • MR
  • DIAGNOSIS
  • ACCURACY
  • UTILITY

Cite this

How to Synthesise Evidence for Imaging Guidelines. / Matowe, L.; Gilbert, Fiona Jane.

In: Clinical Radiology, Vol. 59, No. 1, 2004, p. 63-68.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Matowe, L. ; Gilbert, Fiona Jane. / How to Synthesise Evidence for Imaging Guidelines. In: Clinical Radiology. 2004 ; Vol. 59, No. 1. pp. 63-68.
@article{fe81c19d93094565973a0f837b216ecb,
title = "How to Synthesise Evidence for Imaging Guidelines",
abstract = "AIM: To provide guidance on how to gather and evaluate evidence from the literature on the efficacy of imaging, using as an example the assessment of the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis. This method was adopted for evaluating evidence for the musculoskeletal section of the 5th edition of the Royal College of Radiologists' (RCR) guidelines.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature published between 1966 and July 2001 was carried out. Eligible articles described studies in patients with suspected osteomyelitis and who were diagnosed using MRI. Search strategies were developed to identify relevant imaging studies. Studies included in the systematic review were selected using predefined criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and likelihood ratios for MRI reported in the studies were used to evaluate the value of the procedure in osteomyelitis. Where the above were not reported, they were calculated by the reviewers.RESULTS: The average sensitivity of MRI in osteomyelitis was 91{\%} (range 76-100{\%}), the average specificity was 82{\%} (range 65 - 96{\%}), average accuracy was 88{\%} (range 71-97{\%}), and the average positive likelihood ratio was 7.8 (range 2.3-21.1). Four studies evaluated the use of MRI in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot, two in osteomyelitis of the lower extremities, while four each evaluated the use of MRI in vertebral osteomyelitis, in the diagnosis of any form of osteomyelitis, osteomyelitis in spinal cord-injured patients and in cranial osteomyelitis.CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews of literature can be used to obtain evidence on the value of imaging procedures. The quality of the studies included in the review should always be considered when selecting studies to limit bias. In our example, MRI appears sensitive, specific and accurate in the diagnosis of osteomyetitis at different sites. (C) 2004 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. ALI rights reserved.",
keywords = "guidelines, osteomyelitis, DIABETIC FOOT, OSTEOMYELITIS, MR, DIAGNOSIS, ACCURACY, UTILITY",
author = "L. Matowe and Gilbert, {Fiona Jane}",
year = "2004",
doi = "10.1016/j.crad.2003.09.002",
language = "English",
volume = "59",
pages = "63--68",
journal = "Clinical Radiology",
issn = "0009-9260",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How to Synthesise Evidence for Imaging Guidelines

AU - Matowe, L.

AU - Gilbert, Fiona Jane

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - AIM: To provide guidance on how to gather and evaluate evidence from the literature on the efficacy of imaging, using as an example the assessment of the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis. This method was adopted for evaluating evidence for the musculoskeletal section of the 5th edition of the Royal College of Radiologists' (RCR) guidelines.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature published between 1966 and July 2001 was carried out. Eligible articles described studies in patients with suspected osteomyelitis and who were diagnosed using MRI. Search strategies were developed to identify relevant imaging studies. Studies included in the systematic review were selected using predefined criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and likelihood ratios for MRI reported in the studies were used to evaluate the value of the procedure in osteomyelitis. Where the above were not reported, they were calculated by the reviewers.RESULTS: The average sensitivity of MRI in osteomyelitis was 91% (range 76-100%), the average specificity was 82% (range 65 - 96%), average accuracy was 88% (range 71-97%), and the average positive likelihood ratio was 7.8 (range 2.3-21.1). Four studies evaluated the use of MRI in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot, two in osteomyelitis of the lower extremities, while four each evaluated the use of MRI in vertebral osteomyelitis, in the diagnosis of any form of osteomyelitis, osteomyelitis in spinal cord-injured patients and in cranial osteomyelitis.CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews of literature can be used to obtain evidence on the value of imaging procedures. The quality of the studies included in the review should always be considered when selecting studies to limit bias. In our example, MRI appears sensitive, specific and accurate in the diagnosis of osteomyetitis at different sites. (C) 2004 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. ALI rights reserved.

AB - AIM: To provide guidance on how to gather and evaluate evidence from the literature on the efficacy of imaging, using as an example the assessment of the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis. This method was adopted for evaluating evidence for the musculoskeletal section of the 5th edition of the Royal College of Radiologists' (RCR) guidelines.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature published between 1966 and July 2001 was carried out. Eligible articles described studies in patients with suspected osteomyelitis and who were diagnosed using MRI. Search strategies were developed to identify relevant imaging studies. Studies included in the systematic review were selected using predefined criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and likelihood ratios for MRI reported in the studies were used to evaluate the value of the procedure in osteomyelitis. Where the above were not reported, they were calculated by the reviewers.RESULTS: The average sensitivity of MRI in osteomyelitis was 91% (range 76-100%), the average specificity was 82% (range 65 - 96%), average accuracy was 88% (range 71-97%), and the average positive likelihood ratio was 7.8 (range 2.3-21.1). Four studies evaluated the use of MRI in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot, two in osteomyelitis of the lower extremities, while four each evaluated the use of MRI in vertebral osteomyelitis, in the diagnosis of any form of osteomyelitis, osteomyelitis in spinal cord-injured patients and in cranial osteomyelitis.CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews of literature can be used to obtain evidence on the value of imaging procedures. The quality of the studies included in the review should always be considered when selecting studies to limit bias. In our example, MRI appears sensitive, specific and accurate in the diagnosis of osteomyetitis at different sites. (C) 2004 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. ALI rights reserved.

KW - guidelines

KW - osteomyelitis

KW - DIABETIC FOOT

KW - OSTEOMYELITIS

KW - MR

KW - DIAGNOSIS

KW - ACCURACY

KW - UTILITY

U2 - 10.1016/j.crad.2003.09.002

DO - 10.1016/j.crad.2003.09.002

M3 - Article

VL - 59

SP - 63

EP - 68

JO - Clinical Radiology

JF - Clinical Radiology

SN - 0009-9260

IS - 1

ER -