Diagnostic Accuracy of CT and MR Venography in Acute Cerebral Venous Thrombosis.
Saved in:
| Title: | Diagnostic Accuracy of CT and MR Venography in Acute Cerebral Venous Thrombosis. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Räty, Silja (AUTHOR), Hiltunen, Sini (AUTHOR), Georgiopoulos, Georgios (AUTHOR), Adamou, Anastasia (AUTHOR), Ajdini, Erold (AUTHOR), Virtanen, Pekka (AUTHOR), Korvenoja, Antti (AUTHOR), Ntaios, George (AUTHOR), Putaala, Jukka (AUTHOR), Strbian, Daniel (AUTHOR), Colosimo, Carlo (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Acta Neurologica Scandinavica. 1/6/2025, Vol. 2025, p1-9. 9p. |
| Subjects: | Digital subtraction angiography, Cerebral embolism & thrombosis, Venous thrombosis, Computed tomography, Venography |
| Abstract: | Background: Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is a rare cause of stroke with variable clinical presentation and challenging diagnosis. Computed tomography venography (CT‐V) or magnetic resonance venography (MR‐V) are recommended for detecting CVT, but their diagnostic performance is unclear. This systematic review examines the accuracy of CT‐V and MR‐V in diagnosing CVT. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search up to 02 July 2023 to retrieve original articles studying the diagnostic accuracy of CT‐V or MR‐V in patients with suspected CVT. Studies with a reference standard comprising at least one other imaging method alone or in addition to clinical data were included. The quality of studies was assessed with the QUADAS‐2 tool. Results: We found eight studies (478 subjects) published between 1995 and 2022 that compared one or more diagnostic methods to a reference: CT‐V (four studies, n = 95) and/or MR‐V (three studies, n = 83) versus clinical and radiological consensus, CT‐V versus MR‐V (two studies, n = 292), or MR‐V versus digital subtraction angiography (DSA) (one study, n = 52). They reported excellent diagnostic accuracy for both CT‐V (sensitivity 100%, specificity 94%–100%) and MR‐V (sensitivity 90%–100%, specificity 71%–100%) compared to clinical and radiological consensus, for CT‐V compared to MR‐V (sensitivity 96%–100%, specificity 99%–100%), and for MR‐V compared to DSA (sensitivity 100%, specificity 71%). The heterogeneity of the studies allowed only an exploratory meta‐analysis. The risk of bias in the use of the reference standard was high. Conclusions: Our systematic review found a high accuracy of CT‐V and MR‐V for detecting CVT, suggesting that CT‐V is a feasible option for centers with limited access to MR‐V. However, the small sample sizes and variable reference methods impair conclusions drawn from the current literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Acta Neurologica Scandinavica is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Background: Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is a rare cause of stroke with variable clinical presentation and challenging diagnosis. Computed tomography venography (CT‐V) or magnetic resonance venography (MR‐V) are recommended for detecting CVT, but their diagnostic performance is unclear. This systematic review examines the accuracy of CT‐V and MR‐V in diagnosing CVT. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search up to 02 July 2023 to retrieve original articles studying the diagnostic accuracy of CT‐V or MR‐V in patients with suspected CVT. Studies with a reference standard comprising at least one other imaging method alone or in addition to clinical data were included. The quality of studies was assessed with the QUADAS‐2 tool. Results: We found eight studies (478 subjects) published between 1995 and 2022 that compared one or more diagnostic methods to a reference: CT‐V (four studies, n = 95) and/or MR‐V (three studies, n = 83) versus clinical and radiological consensus, CT‐V versus MR‐V (two studies, n = 292), or MR‐V versus digital subtraction angiography (DSA) (one study, n = 52). They reported excellent diagnostic accuracy for both CT‐V (sensitivity 100%, specificity 94%–100%) and MR‐V (sensitivity 90%–100%, specificity 71%–100%) compared to clinical and radiological consensus, for CT‐V compared to MR‐V (sensitivity 96%–100%, specificity 99%–100%), and for MR‐V compared to DSA (sensitivity 100%, specificity 71%). The heterogeneity of the studies allowed only an exploratory meta‐analysis. The risk of bias in the use of the reference standard was high. Conclusions: Our systematic review found a high accuracy of CT‐V and MR‐V for detecting CVT, suggesting that CT‐V is a feasible option for centers with limited access to MR‐V. However, the small sample sizes and variable reference methods impair conclusions drawn from the current literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00016314 |
| DOI: | 10.1155/ane/5712133 |
