Deep Learning for Pneumothorax Detection on Chest Radiograph: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pneumothorax is a common acute presentation in healthcare settings. A chest radiograph (CXR) is often necessary to make the diagnosis, and minimizing the time between presentation and diagnosis is critical to deliver optimal treatment. Deep learning (DL) algorithms have been developed to rapidly identify pathologic findings on various imaging modalities. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the overall performance of studies utilizing DL algorithms to detect pneumothorax on CXR. METHODS: A study protocol was created and registered a priori (PROSPERO CRD42023391375). The search strategy included studies published up until January 10, 2023. Inclusion criteria were studies that used adult patients, utilized computer-aided detection of pneumothorax on CXR, dataset was evaluated by a qualified physician, and sufficient data was present to create a 2 × 2 contingency table. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Bivariate random effects meta-analyses and meta-regression modeling were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were selected, including 34 011 patients and 34 075 CXRs. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 87% (95% confidence interval, 81%, 92%) and 95% (95% confidence interval, 92%, 97%), respectively. The study design, use of an institutional/public data set and risk of bias had no significant effect on the sensitivity and specificity of pneumothorax detection. CONCLUSIONS: The relatively high sensitivity and specificity of pneumothorax detection by deep-learning showcases the vast potential for implementation in clinical settings to both augment the workflow of radiologists and assist in more rapid diagnoses and subsequent patient treatment.

MRI-guided Minimally Invasive Focal Therapies for Prostate Cancer.

Two cases involving patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and treated with MRI-guided focal therapies are presented. Patient selection procedures, techniques, outcomes, challenges, and future directions of MRI-guided focal therapies, as well as their role in the treatment of low- to intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer, are summarized.

Percentage of Pancreatic Cysts on MRI With a Pancreatic Carcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are frequent on MRI and are thought to be associated with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) necessitating long-term surveillance based on older studies suffering from selection bias. PURPOSE: To establish the percentage of patients with PCLs on MRI with a present or future PDAC. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review, meta-analysis. POPULATION: Adults with PCLs on MRI and a present or future diagnosis of PDAC were eligible. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus were searched to April 2022 (PROSPERO:CRD42022320502). Studies limited to PCLs not requiring surveillance, <100 patients, or those with a history/genetic risk of PDAC were excluded. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: ≥1.5 T with ≥1 T2-weighted sequence. ASSESSMENT: Two investigators extracted data, with discrepancies resolved by a third. QUADAS-2 assessed bias. PDAC was diagnosed using a composite reference standard. STATISTICAL TESTS: A meta-analysis of proportions was performed at the patient-level with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Eight studies with 1289 patients contributed to the percentage of patients with a present diagnosis of PDAC, and 10 studies with 3422 patients to the percentage with a future diagnosis. Of patients with PCLs on MRI, 14.8% (95% CI 2.4-34.9) had a PDAC at initial MRI, which decreased to 6.0% (2.2-11.3) for studies at low risk of bias. For patients without PDAC on initial MRI, 2.0% (1.1-3.2) developed PDAC during surveillance, similar for low risk of bias studies at 1.9% (0.7-3.6), with no clear trend of increased PDAC for longer surveillance durations. For patients without worrisome features or high-risk stigmata, 0.9% (0.1-2.2) developed PDAC during surveillance. Of 10, eight studies had a median surveillance ≥3 years (range 3-157 months). Sources of bias included retrospectively limiting PCLs to those with histopathology and inconsistent surveillance protocols. DATA CONCLUSION: A low percentage of patients with PCLs on MRI develop PDAC while on surveillance. The first MRI revealing a PCL should be scrutinized for PDAC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

MRI vs. CT for pancreatic adenocarcinoma vascular invasion: comparative diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review comparing the diagnostic accuracy of MRI vs. CT for assessing pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) vascular invasion. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and Scopus were searched until December 2021 for diagnostic accuracy studies comparing MRI vs. CT to evaluate vascular invasion of pathologically confirmed PDAC in the same patients. Findings on resection or exploratory laparotomy were the preferred reference standard. Data extraction, risk of bias, and applicability assessment were performed by two authors using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative Tool. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Three studies were included assessing 474 vessels without vascular invasion and 65 with vascular invasion in 107 patients. All patients were imaged using MRI at ≥ 1.5 T and a pancreatic protocol CT. No difference was shown between MRI and CT for diagnosing PDAC vascular invasion: MRI/CT sensitivity (95% CI) were 71% (47-87%)/74% (56-86%), and specificity were 97% (94-99%)/97% (94-98%). Sources of bias included selection bias from only a subset of CT patients undergoing MRI and verification bias from patients with unresectable disease not confirmed on surgery. No patients received neoadjuvant therapy prior to staging. CONCLUSIONS: Based on limited data, no difference was observed between MRI and pancreatic protocol CT for PDAC vascular invasion assessment. MRI may be an adequate substitute for pancreatic protocol CT in some patients, particularly those who have already had a single-phase CT. Larger and more recent cohort studies at low risk of bias, including patients who have received neoadjuvant therapy, are needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Abdominal MRI performed similarly to pancreatic protocol CT at assessing pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma vascular invasion, suggesting local staging is adequate in some patients using MRI. More data are needed using larger, more recent cohorts including patients with neoadjuvant treatment. KEY POINTS: • Based on limited data, no difference was found between MRI and pancreatic protocol CT sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing PDAC vascular invasion (p = 0.81, 0.73 respectively). • Risk of bias could be reduced in future PDAC MRI vs CT comparative diagnostic test accuracy research by ensuring all enrolled patients undergo both imaging modalities being compared in random order and regardless of the findings on either modality. • More studies are needed that directly compare the diagnostic performance of MRI and CT for PDAC staging after neoadjuvant therapy.

Quality improvement strategies for diabetes care: Effects on outcomes for adults living with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: There is a large body of evidence evaluating quality improvement (QI) programmes to improve care for adults living with diabetes. These programmes are often comprised of multiple QI strategies, which may be implemented in various combinations. Decision-makers planning to implement or evaluate a new QI programme, or both, need reliable evidence on the relative effectiveness of different QI strategies (individually and in combination) for different patient populations. OBJECTIVES: To update existing systematic reviews of diabetes QI programmes and apply novel meta-analytical techniques to estimate the effectiveness of QI strategies (individually and in combination) on diabetes quality of care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL) and trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) to 4 June 2019. We conducted a top-up search to 23 September 2021; we screened these search results and 42 studies meeting our eligibility criteria are available in the awaiting classification section. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials that assessed a QI programme to improve care in outpatient settings for people living with diabetes. QI programmes needed to evaluate at least one system- or provider-targeted QI strategy alone or in combination with a patient-targeted strategy. - System-targeted: case management (CM); team changes (TC); electronic patient registry (EPR); facilitated relay of clinical information (FR); continuous quality improvement (CQI). - Provider-targeted: audit and feedback (AF); clinician education (CE); clinician reminders (CR); financial incentives (FI). - Patient-targeted: patient education (PE); promotion of self-management (PSM); patient reminders (PR). Patient-targeted QI strategies needed to occur with a minimum of one provider or system-targeted strategy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We dual-screened search results and abstracted data on study design, study population and QI strategies. We assessed the impact of the programmes on 13 measures of diabetes care, including: glycaemic control (e.g. mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)); cardiovascular risk factor management (e.g. mean systolic blood pressure (SBP), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), proportion of people living with diabetes that quit smoking or receiving cardiovascular medications); and screening/prevention of microvascular complications (e.g. proportion of patients receiving retinopathy or foot screening); and harms (e.g. proportion of patients experiencing adverse hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia). We modelled the association of each QI strategy with outcomes using a series of hierarchical multivariable meta-regression models in a Bayesian framework. The previous version of this review identified that different strategies were more or less effective depending on baseline levels of outcomes. To explore this further, we extended the main additive model for continuous outcomes (HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C) to include an interaction term between each strategy and average baseline risk for each study (baseline thresholds were based on a data-driven approach; we used the median of all baseline values reported in the trials). Based on model diagnostics, the baseline interaction models for HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C performed better than the main model and are therefore presented as the primary analyses for these outcomes. Based on the model results, we qualitatively ordered each QI strategy within three tiers (Top, Middle, Bottom) based on its magnitude of effect relative to the other QI strategies, where 'Top' indicates that the QI strategy was likely one of the most effective strategies for that specific outcome. Secondary analyses explored the sensitivity of results to choices in model specification and priors.  Additional information about the methods and results of the review are available as Appendices in an online repository. This review will be maintained as a living systematic review; we will update our syntheses as more data become available. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 553 trials (428 patient-randomised and 125 cluster-randomised trials), including a total of 412,161 participants. Of the included studies, 66% involved people living with type 2 diabetes only. Participants were 50% female and the median age of participants was 58.4 years. The mean duration of follow-up was 12.5 months. HbA1c was the commonest reported outcome; screening outcomes and outcomes related to cardiovascular medications, smoking and harms were reported infrequently. The most frequently evaluated QI strategies across all study arms were PE, PSM and CM, while the least frequently evaluated QI strategies included AF, FI and CQI. Our confidence in the evidence is limited due to a lack of information on how studies were conducted.  Four QI strategies (CM, TC, PE, PSM) were consistently identified as 'Top' across the majority of outcomes. All QI strategies were ranked as 'Top' for at least one key outcome. The majority of effects of individual QI strategies were modest, but when used in combination could result in meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. The median number of QI strategies in multicomponent QI programmes was three.  Combinations of the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to the below effects:  - PR + PSM + CE: decrease in HbA1c by 0.41% (credibility interval (CrI) -0.61 to -0.22) when baseline HbA1c < 8.3%; - CM + PE + EPR: decrease in HbA1c by 0.62% (CrI -0.84 to -0.39) when baseline HbA1c > 8.3%;  - PE + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 2.14 mmHg (CrI -3.80 to -0.52) when baseline SBP < 136 mmHg; - CM + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 4.39 mmHg (CrI -6.20 to -2.56) when baseline SBP > 136 mmHg;  - TC + PE + CM: LDL-C lowering of 5.73 mg/dL (CrI -7.93 to -3.61) when baseline LDL < 107 mg/dL; - TC + CM + CR: LDL-C lowering by 5.52 mg/dL (CrI -9.24 to -1.89) when baseline LDL > 107 mg/dL. Assuming a baseline screening rate of 50%, the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to an absolute improvement of 33% in retinopathy screening (PE + PR + TC) and 38% absolute increase in foot screening (PE + TC + Other). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant body of evidence about QI programmes to improve the management of diabetes. Multicomponent QI programmes for diabetes care (comprised of effective QI strategies) may achieve meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. For health system decision-makers, the evidence summarised in this review can be used to identify strategies to include in QI programmes. For researchers, this synthesis identifies higher-priority QI strategies to examine in further research regarding how to optimise their evaluation and effects. We will maintain this as a living systematic review.

Barriers to Screening At-risk Populations in Canada.

Cancer screening is invaluable for early detection of disease, including for breast and lung cancer. Through early detection, cancer treatment can be commenced prior to the development of advanced stage disease, significantly reducing morbidity and mortality. However, eligible patients may face barriers when accessing screening services, and some groups may be more disproportionately affected than others. This review aims to describe some of the most prominent barriers that at-risk populations may face when accessing image-based cancer screening services in Canada. Characterizing these barriers would be helpful in determining the best strategies to increase uptake to these screening services and, consequently, improve health equity.

Association of Accuracy, Conclusions, and Reporting Completeness With Acceptance by Radiology Conferences and Journals.

BACKGROUND: Preferential publication of studies with positive findings can lead to overestimation of diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. publication bias). Understanding the contribution of the editorial process to publication bias could inform interventions to optimize the evidence guiding clinical decisions. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate whether accuracy estimates, abstract conclusion positivity, and completeness of abstract reporting are associated with acceptance to radiology conferences and journals. STUDY TYPE: Meta-research. POPULATION: Abstracts submitted to radiology conferences (European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM)) from 2008 to 2018 and manuscripts submitted to radiology journals (Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging [JMRI]) from 2017 to 2018. Primary clinical studies evaluating sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic imaging test in humans with available editorial decisions were included. ASSESSMENT: Primary variables (Youden's index [YI > 0.8 vs. <0.8], abstract conclusion positivity [positive vs. neutral/negative], number of reported items on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] for Abstract guideline) and confounding variables (prospective vs. retrospective/unreported, sample size, study duration, interobserver agreement assessment, subspecialty, modality) were extracted. STATISTICAL TESTS: Multivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratio (OR) as a measure of the association between the primary variables and acceptance by radiology conferences and journals; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values were obtained; the threshold for statistical significance was P < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 1000 conference abstracts (500 ESGAR and 500 ISMRM) and 1000 journal manuscripts (505 Radiology and 495 JMRI) were included. Conference abstract acceptance was not significantly associated with YI (adjusted OR = 0.97 for YI > 0.8; CI = 0.70-1.35), conclusion positivity (OR = 1.21 for positive conclusions; CI = 0.75-1.90) or STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 0.96 per unit increase in reported items; CI = 0.82-1.18). Manuscripts with positive abstract conclusions were less likely to be accepted by radiology journals (OR = 0.45; CI = 0.24-0.86), while YI (OR = 0.85; CI = 0.56-1.29) and STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 1.06; CI = 0.87-1.30) showed no significant association. Positive conclusions were present in 86.7% of submitted conference abstracts and 90.2% of journal manuscripts. DATA CONCLUSION: Diagnostic test accuracy studies with positive findings were not preferentially accepted by the evaluated radiology conferences or journals. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Use of Intravenous Gadolinium-based Contrast Media in Patients with Kidney Disease and the Risk of Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis: Radiology In Training.

A 66-year-old male patient with end-stage chronic kidney disease undergoing maintenance dialysis and with a history of group I intravenous gadolinium-based contrast media (GBCM) administration presented with clinical and pathologic findings consistent with nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. A summary of the evidence and recommendations for use of intravenous GBCM in patients with kidney disease is presented. © RSNA, 2021.

Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Pancreatic Cystic Lesions Compared to CT and Endoscopic Ultrasound: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Differentiation of benign and malignant pancreatic cystic lesions on MRI, computed tomography (CT), and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is critical for determining management. PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for diagnosing malignant pancreatic cystic lesions, and to compare the accuracy of MRI to CT and EUS. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched until February 2020 for studies reporting MRI accuracy for assessing pancreatic cystic lesions. FIELD STRENGTH: 1.5T or 3.0T. ASSESSMENT: Methodologic and outcome data were extracted by two reviewers (AU and MA, 2 years of experience each). All studies of pancreatic cystic lesions on MRI were identified. Studies with incomplete MRI technique were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. STATISTICAL TESTS: Sensitivity/specificity was pooled using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Pairwise-comparison of MRI to CT and EUS was performed. The impact of gadolinium-based contrast agents, mucinous lesions, and risk of bias were explored using meta-regression. RESULTS: MRI pooled sensitivity was 76% (95%CI 67% to 84%) and specificity was 80% (95%CI 74% to 85%) for distinguishing benign and malignant lesions. MRI and CT had similar sensitivity (P = 0.822) and specificity (P = 0.096), but MRI was more specific than EUS (80% vs. 75%, P < 0.05). Studies including only contrast-enhanced MRI were more sensitive than those including unenhanced exams (P < 0.05). MRI sensitivity and specificity did not differ for mucinous lesions (P = 0.537 and P = 0.384, respectively) or for studies at risk of bias (P = 0.789 and P = 0.791, respectively). DATA CONCLUSION: MRI and CT demonstrate comparable accuracy for diagnosing malignant pancreatic cystic lesions. EUS is less specific than MRI, which suggests that, in some cases, management should be guided by MRI findings rather than EUS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.

MRI vs. CT for the Detection of Liver Metastases in Patients With Pancreatic Carcinoma: A Comparative Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The detection of liver metastases is important for pancreatic cancer curative treatment eligibility. The data suggest that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is more sensitive than computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer liver metastases. However, MRI is not currently recommended in multiple published guidelines. PURPOSE: To perform a comparative diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis comparing CT and MRI for pancreatic cancer liver metastases detection. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and multiple radiology society meeting archives were searched until November 2018. Comparative design studies reporting on liver CT and MRI accuracy for detection of pancreatic cancer liver metastases in the same cohort were included. FIELD STRENGTH: 1.5T or 3.0T. ASSESSMENT: Demographic, methodologic, and diagnostic test accuracy data were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. STATISTICAL TESTS: Accuracy metrics were obtained using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. The impact of different covariates on accuracy estimates was assessed using a meta-regression model. Covariates included modality, study design, tumor characteristics, risk of bias, and imaging protocols. RESULTS: Fourteen studies including 987 patients with pancreatic cancer (205 with liver metastases) were included. Sensitivity for CT and MRI was 45% (confidence intervals [95% CI] 21-71%) and 83% (95% CI 74-88%), respectively. Specificity for CT and MRI was 94% (95% CI 84-98%) and 96% (95% CI 93-97%), respectively. The greater observed sensitivity of MRI was preserved in the meta-regression model (P = 0.01), while no difference in specificity was detected (P = 0.16). CT sensitivity was highest for triphasic and quadriphasic examinations compared to single phase or biphasic protocols (P = 0.03). Most studies were at high risk of bias. DATA CONCLUSION: MRI is more sensitive than CT for pancreatic cancer liver metastases detection, accounting for confounding variables. Consideration of this finding in clinical practice guidelines is recommended. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 3.

Use of Enteric Contrast Material for Abdominopelvic CT in Penetrating Traumatic Injury in Adults: Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND. Scarce evidence exists on the diagnostic benefit of enteric contrast administration for abdominopelvic CT performed in the setting of penetrating trauma. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CT using enteric contrast material with that of CT not using enteric contrast material in penetrating traumatic abdominopelvic injury in adults. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION. A protocol was registered a priori (PROSPERO CRD42019139613). MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched until June 25, 2019. Studies were included that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of abdominopelvic CT either with or without enteric (oral and/or rectal) contrast material in patients presenting with penetrating traumatic injury. Relevant study data metrics and risk of bias were assessed. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression modeling were performed to assess and compare diagnostic accuracies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS. From an initial sample of 829 studies, 12 studies were included that reported on 1287 patients with penetrating injury (389 with confirmed bowel, mesenteric, or other abdominopelvic organ injury). The enteric contrast material group (seven studies; 506 patients; 124 patients with confirmed penetrating injury) showed a sensitivity of 83.8% (95% CI, 73.7-90.5%) and specificity of 93.8% (95% CI, 83.6-97.8%). The group without enteric contrast administration (six studies; 781 patients; 265 patients with confirmed penetrating injury) showed a sensitivity of 93.0% (95% CI, 86.8-96.4%) and a specificity of 90.3% (95% CI, 81.4-95.2%). No statistically significant difference was identified for sensitivity (p = .07) or specificity (p = .37) between the groups with and without enteric contrast material according to meta-regression. Nine of 12 studies showed risk of bias in at least one QUADAS-2 domain (most frequently limited reporting of blinding of radiologists or lack of blinding of radiologists, insufficient clinical follow-up for the reference standard, and limited reporting of sampling methods). CONCLUSION. The use of enteric contrast material for CT does not provide a significant diagnostic benefit for penetrating traumatic injury. CLINICAL IMPACT. Eliminating enteric contrast administration for CT in penetrating traumatic injury can prevent delays in imaging and surgery and reduce cost.

Synthetic 2D Mammography Versus Standard 2D Digital Mammography: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND. The use of synthetic 2D mammography (SM) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in place of standard 2D digital mammography (DM) may reduce radiation dose without sacrificing accuracy. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of SM, DM, SM with DBT, and DM with DBT for breast cancer detection. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION. A search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed for relevant articles published up to September 11, 2019. Studies included compared the diagnostic accuracy of SM versus DM and SM plus DBT versus DM plus DBT for breast cancer detection. Relevant study data metrics and risk of bias were assessed. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed to assess diagnostic accuracy (PROSPERO CRD42020150737). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS. Thirteen studies reporting on 201,304 patients (7252 patients with breast cancer) were included. The SM group (six studies: 20,728 patients, 724 with breast cancer) had 75% sensitivity (95% CI, 67-82%) and 92% specificity (95% CI, 85-96%). The DM group (nine studies: 52,082 patients, 2249 patients with breast cancer) had 73% sensitivity (95% CI, 65-80%) and 88% specificity (95% CI, 77-94%). The SM plus DBT group (10 studies, 64,224 patients, 2149 with breast cancer) had 85% sensitivity (95% CI, 80-89%) and 93% specificity (95% CI, 86-96%). The DM plus DBT group (nine studies, 64,270 patients, 2130 with breast cancer) had 84% sensitivity (95% CI, 80-88%) and 91% specificity (95% CI, 83-95%). Meta-regression models did not reveal significant differences in accuracy between the SM and DM groups (p = .25-.77). CONCLUSION. SM and SM plus DBT showed comparable diagnostic accuracy to DM and DM plus DBT, respectively. CLINICAL IMPACT. The findings support the implementation of SM in place of standard DM for mammographic imaging of the breasts. This may lead to an overall reduction in radiation exposure.

Female Authorship in Radiology: Trends in the Past Decade in CARJ.

PURPOSE: To identify trends in female authorship in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (CARJ) from 2010 to 2019. METHODS: We retrieved papers published in the CARJ over a 10-year period, and retrospectively reviewed 602 articles. All articles except editorials and advertisements were included. We categorized the names of the first and last position authors as female or male and excluded articles that had at least one author of which gender was not known. We compared the trends in the first and last position authors of the articles from 2010 to 2019. For statistical analysis, logistic regression was performed with reported odds ratios (ORs), and a P value of <.05 was defined as statistically significant. RESULTS: Five hundred thirteen articles met inclusion criteria. Among them, 23 articles with a single author were classified as having only a first author. 39.8% (204/513) of first authors were female and 26.9% (132/490) of last authors were female. There has been an overall temporal increase in the odds of both the first and last author being female in CARJ publications (OR: 1.11, P = .034). Similarly, the odds a CARJ publication's first author being female increased over time (OR: 1.07, P = .033). Female last author did not predict female first author (OR: 1.48, P = .056). There was no association identified between female last author and year of publication (OR: 1.04, P = .225). CONCLUSION: There has been an overall increase in engagement of female authorship in CARJ.

Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: No consensus exists on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) utilization for breast cancer detection. We performed a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis comparing DBT, combined DBT and digital mammography (DM), and DM alone for breast cancer detection in average-risk women. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until September 2018. Comparative design studies reporting on the diagnostic accuracy of DBT and/or DM for breast cancer detection were included. Demographic, methodologic, and diagnostic accuracy data were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. Accuracy metrics were pooled using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. The impact of multiple covariates was assessed using meta-regression. PROSPERO ID: CRD 42018111287. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies reporting on 488,099 patients (13,923 with breast cancer) were included. Eleven studies were at low risk of bias. DBT alone, combined DBT and DM, and DM alone demonstrated sensitivities of 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83-92), 88% (CI 83-92), and 79% (CI 75-82), as well as specificities of 84% (CI 76-89), 81% (CI 73-88), and 79% (CI 71-85), respectively. The greater sensitivities of DBT alone and combined DBT and DM compared to DM alone were preserved in the combined meta-regression models accounting for other covariates (p = 0.003-0.006). No significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between DBT alone and combined DBT and DM was identified (p = 0.175-0.581). CONCLUSIONS: DBT is more sensitive than DM, while the addition of DM to DBT provides no additional diagnostic benefit. Consideration of these findings in breast cancer imaging guidelines is recommended. KEY POINTS: • Digital breast tomosynthesis with or without additional digital mammography is more sensitive in detecting breast cancer than digital mammography alone in women at average risk for breast cancer. • The addition of digital mammography to digital breast tomosynthesis provides no additional diagnostic benefit in detecting breast cancer compared to digital breast tomosynthesis alone. • The specificity of digital breast tomosynthesis with or without additional digital mammography is no different than digital mammography alone in the detection of breast cancer.

Biparametric vs multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of prostate cancer in treatment-naïve patients: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic review and meta-analysis comparing multiparametric (diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI], T2-weighted imaging [T2WI], and dynamic contrast-enhanced [DCE] imaging) magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and biparametric (DWI and T2WI) MRI (bpMRI) in detecting prostate cancer in treatment-naïve patients. METHODS: The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) were searched to identify relevant studies published after 1 January 2012. Articles underwent title, abstract, and full-text screening. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients with suspected prostate cancer, bpMRI and/or mpMRI as the index test(s), histopathology as the reference standard, and a DTA outcome measure. Methodological and DTA data were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. DTA metrics were pooled using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was conducted to assess for heterogeneity. RESULTS: From an initial 3502 studies, 31 studies reporting on 9480 patients (4296 with prostate cancer) met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis; 25 studies reported on mpMRI (7000 patients, 2954 with prostate cancer) and 12 studies reported on bpMRI DTA (2716 patients, 1477 with prostate cancer). Pooled summary statistics demonstrated no significant difference for sensitivity (mpMRI: 86%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 81-90; bpMRI: 90%, 95% CI 83-94) or specificity (mpMRI: 73%, 95% CI 64-81; bpMRI: 70%, 95% CI 42-83). The summary receiver operating characteristic curves were comparable for mpMRI (0.87) and bpMRI (0.90). CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in DTA was found between mpMRI and bpMRI in diagnosing prostate cancer in treatment-naïve patients. Study heterogeneity warrants cautious interpretation of the results. With replication of our findings in dedicated validation studies, bpMRI may serve as a faster, cheaper, gadolinium-free alternative to mpMRI.

Comparative reviews of diagnostic test accuracy in imaging research: evaluation of current practices.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this methodological review was to determine the extent to which comparative imaging systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) use primary studies with comparative or non-comparative designs. METHODS: MEDLINE was used to identify DTA systematic reviews published in imaging journals between January 2000 and May 2018. INCLUSION CRITERIA: systematic reviews comparing at least two index tests (one of which was imaging-based); review characteristics were extracted. Study design and other characteristics of primary studies included in the systematic reviews were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred three comparative imaging reviews were included; 11 (11%) included only comparative studies, 12 (11%) included only non-comparative primary studies, and 80 (78%) included both comparative and non-comparative primary studies. For reviews containing both comparative and non-comparative primary studies, the median proportion of non-comparative primary studies was 81% (IQR 57-90%). Of 92 reviews that included non-comparative primary studies, 86% did not recognize this as a limitation. Furthermore, among 4182 primary studies, 3438 (82%) were non-comparative and 744 (18%) were comparative in design. CONCLUSION: Most primary studies included in comparative imaging reviews are non-comparative in design and awareness of the risk of bias associated with this is low. This may lead to incorrect conclusions about the relative accuracy of diagnostic tests and be counter-productive for informing guidelines and funding decisions about imaging tests. KEY POINTS: • Few comparative accuracy imaging reviews include only primary studies with optimal comparative study designs. Among the rest, few recognize the risk of bias conferred from inclusion of primary studies with non-comparative designs. • The demand for accurate comparative accuracy data combined with minimal awareness of valid comparative study designs may lead to counter-productive research and inadequately supported clinical decisions for diagnostic tests. • Using comparative accuracy imaging reviews with a high risk of bias to inform guidelines and funding decisions may have detrimental impacts on patient care.

Multi-detector CT for suspected hip fragility fractures: A diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis.

To perform a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of Multi-Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT) for detecting proximal femoral (hip) fragility fractures in patients with a negative initial radiograph. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify relevant studies published between January 2000 and May 2018. Articles underwent title and abstract screening followed by full-text screening. Study inclusion criteria are patients with suspected hip fracture, negative initial radiograph, MDCT as the index test, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or clinical follow-up as the reference standard, and DTA measure as the outcome. Demographic, methodologic, and study outcome data were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. DTA metrics were pooled using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. From an initial 1385 studies, four studies reporting on 418 patients (174 with hip fractures) were included. Pooled summary statistics included the following: sensitivity (87%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 79-93), specificity (98%; 95% CI 95-99), and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (0.972). MDCT has a high specificity for detecting hip fragility fractures, comparable to MRI, but a lower sensitivity. Local institutional factors may play a role in whether a patient receives MDCT or MRI, as imaging should not be delayed. If there is ongoing concern for fracture in a patient with a negative MDCT, MRI should be performed. Cautious interpretation of the results is warranted given the risk of bias and small sample size.

Predictors of Citation Rate for Original Research Studies in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal.

OBJECTIVE: This study is aimed to identify predictors of citation rate of original research published in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (CARJ). METHODS: A search of MEDLINE was conducted from January 1, 2000-June 30, 2013 to identify all studies published in the CARJ. Original research studies were included. Reviews, pictorial essays, guidelines, case studies, case series, and original studies with a sample size <10 were excluded. Variables assessed for association with citation rate included number of authors, study design, sample size, multi-institutional study, multi-national study, study type, presence of statistically significant result, presence of funding, and number of references. Statistical analysis was completed using linear regression and Pearson correlation coefficients (r). RESULTS: A total of 714 studies were published in CARJ, of which 181 were original research publications that were cited a total of 1517 times. Twelve original research studies were uncited, while the most-cited one was cited 58 times. Sample size (r = 0.177, P = .017) and number of references (r = 0.164, P = .028) demonstrated statistically significant weak positive correlations with citation rate. Number of authors, study design, setting, statistically significant results, and funding were not associated with citation rate. CONCLUSION: Only a very small number of original research studies published at the CARJ remained uncited 5 or more years after the publication. Sample size and number of references were identified as significant, but weak predictors of citation rate in CARJ.