Diagnostic accuracy and utility of coronary CT angiography with consideration of unevaluable results: A systematic review and multivariate Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis with intention to diagnose

European Radiology

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 451-458

  Menke, Jan ^a   Kowalski, Jörg ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^b Department of Cardiology   (Germany)

Author keywords

Coronary CT angiography; Meta analysis; Predictive value of tests; Sensitivity and specificity; Utility

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONVENTIONAL ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; CORONARY ARTERY OBSTRUCTION; CORONARY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY ANGIOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; BEHAVIOR; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS;

BAYES THEOREM; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; HUMANS; INTENTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84954393707     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: 14321084     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-3831-z     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Nabel EG, Braunwald E (2012) A tale of coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 366:54–63
2. Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM et al (2010) ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography. Circulation 122:e525–e555
3. Menke J, Unterberg-Buchwald C, Staab W, Sohns JM, Seif Amir Hosseini A, Schwarz A (2013) Head-to-head comparison of prospectively triggered versus retrospectively gated coronary CT angiography: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy, image quality, and radiation dose. Am Heart J 165:154–163
4. Simel DL, Feussner JR, DeLong ER, Matchar DB (1987) Intermediate, indeterminate, and uninterpretable diagnostic test results. Med Decis Mak 7:107–114
5. Pauker SG, Kassirer JP (1980) The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N Engl J Med 302:1109–1117
6. Menke J (2013) Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with the Bayesian SAS PROC MCMC: methodology and empirical evaluation in 50 meta-analyses. Med Decis Mak 33:692–701
7. Dobson AJ, Barnett AG (2008) An introduction to generalized linear models, 3rd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, ISBN 978-1-58488-950-2
8. SAS/STAT 9.3 User’s guide. PROC MCMC. http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63962/HTML/default/viewer.htm#statug_mcmc_sect001.htm. Accessed Mar 11 2012
9. Bipat S, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J (2007) Multivariate random-effects approach: for meta-analysis of cancer staging studies. Acad Radiol 14:974–984
10. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 151:W65–W94
11. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536
12. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L (2005) The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 58:882–893
13. Menke J, Larsen J (2010) Meta-analysis: accuracy of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for assessing steno-occlusions in peripheral arterial disease. Ann Intern Med 153:325–334
14. Menke J, Larsen J, Kallenberg K (2011) Diagnosing cerebral aneurysms by computed tomographic angiography: meta-analysis. Ann Neurol 69:646–654
15. Menke J (2010) Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with SAS PROC GLIMMIX. Methods Inf Med 49:54–64
16. Harbord RM, Deeks JJ, Egger M, Whiting P, Sterne JA (2007) A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics 8:239–251
17. Kardaun JW, Kardaun OJ (1990) Comparative diagnostic performance of three radiological procedures for the detection of lumbar disk herniation. Methods Inf Med 29:12–22
18. Menke J, Schramm P, Sohns JM, Kallenberg K, Staab W (2014) Diagnosing flow residuals in coiled cerebral aneurysms by MR angiography: meta-analysis. J Neurol 261:655–662
19. Sung L, Hayden J, Greenberg ML, Koren G, Feldman BM, Tomlinson GA (2005) Seven items were identified for inclusion when reporting a Bayesian analysis of a clinical study. J Clin Epidemiol 58:261–268
20. Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D et al (2010) Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med 362:886–895
21. Goodacre S, Thokala P, Carroll C et al (2013) Systematic review, meta-analysis and economic modelling of diagnostic strategies for suspected acute coronary syndrome (Table 56: cost estimates used in the model). Health Technol Assess 17:1–188
22. Met R, Bipat S, Legemate DA, Reekers JA, Koelemay MJ (2006) Accuracy of 16-row multidetector computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery stenosis. JAMA 296:403–411
23. Meijer AB, O YL, Geleijns J, Kroft LJ (2008) Meta-analysis of 40- and 64-MDCT angiography for assessing coronary artery stenosis. Am J Roentgenol 191:1667–1675
24. Schuetz GM, Schlattmann P, Dewey M (2012) Use of 3×2 tables with an intention to diagnose approach to assess clinical performance of diagnostic tests: meta-analytical evaluation of coronary CT angiography studies. BMJ 345, e6717
25. Ko BS, Wong DT, Cameron JD et al (2014) 320-row CT coronary angiography predicts freedom from revascularisation and acts as a gatekeeper to defer invasive angiography in stable coronary artery disease: a fractional flow reserve-correlated study. Eur Radiol 24:738–747
26. Tashakkor AY, Nicolaou S, Leipsic J, Mancini GB (2012) The emerging role of cardiac computed tomography for the assessment of coronary perfusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol 28:413–422
27. Kang EJ, Lee J, Lee KN, Kown H, Ha DH, Kim RB (2013) An initial randomised study assessing free-breathing CCTA using 320-detector CT. Eur Radiol 23:1199–1209