Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Commercial volumetric MRI reporting tools in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidence.
Mendelsohn, Zoe; Pemberton, Hugh G; Gray, James; Goodkin, Olivia; Carrasco, Ferran Prados; Scheel, Michael; Nawabi, Jawed; Barkhof, Frederik.
Afiliação
  • Mendelsohn Z; Neuroradiological Academic Unit, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK. z.mendelsohn@ucl.ac.uk.
  • Pemberton HG; Department of Medical Physics and Bioengineering, Centre for Medical Image Computing (CMIC), University College London, London, UK. z.mendelsohn@ucl.ac.uk.
  • Gray J; Department of Neuroinflammation, Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK. z.mendelsohn@ucl.ac.uk.
  • Goodkin O; Department of Neuroradiology, Charité School of Medicine and University Hospital Berlin, Berlin, Germany. z.mendelsohn@ucl.ac.uk.
  • Carrasco FP; Department of Radiology, Charité School of Medicine and University Hospital Berlin, Berlin, Germany. z.mendelsohn@ucl.ac.uk.
  • Scheel M; Neuroradiological Academic Unit, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
  • Nawabi J; Department of Medical Physics and Bioengineering, Centre for Medical Image Computing (CMIC), University College London, London, UK.
  • Barkhof F; GE Healthcare, Amersham, UK.
Neuroradiology ; 65(1): 5-24, 2023 Jan.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36331588
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

MRI is integral to the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) and is important for clinical prognostication. Quantitative volumetric reporting tools (QReports) can improve the accuracy and objectivity of MRI-based assessments. Several QReports are commercially available; however, validation can be difficult to establish and does not currently follow a common pathway. To aid evidence-based clinical decision-making, we performed a systematic review of commercial QReports for use in MS including technical details and published reports of validation and in-use evaluation.

METHODS:

We categorized studies into three types of testing technical validation, for example, comparison to manual segmentation, clinical validation by clinicians or interpretation of results alongside clinician-rated variables, and in-use evaluation, such as health economic assessment.

RESULTS:

We identified 10 companies, which provide MS lesion and brain segmentation and volume quantification, and 38 relevant publications. Tools received regulatory approval between 2006 and 2020, contextualize results to normative reference populations, ranging from 620 to 8000 subjects, and require T1- and T2-FLAIR-weighted input sequences for longitudinal assessment of whole-brain volume and lesions. In MS, six QReports provided evidence of technical validation, four companies have conducted clinical validation by correlating results with clinical variables, only one has tested their QReport by clinician end-users, and one has performed a simulated in-use socioeconomic evaluation.

CONCLUSION:

We conclude that there is limited evidence in the literature regarding clinical validation and in-use evaluation of commercial MS QReports with a particular lack of clinician end-user testing. Our systematic review provides clinicians and institutions with the available evidence when considering adopting a quantitative reporting tool for MS.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Esclerose Múltipla Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Esclerose Múltipla Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article