ObjectivesTo assess the accuracy of different types and magnetic field intensity of cardiac magnetic resonance for coronary artery disease.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, WanFang Data, CNKI and CBM databases were searched to collect the studies on different types and magnetic field intensity of cardiac magnetic resonance for coronary artery disease from inception to May 15th, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, data were synthesized by using MetaDisc 1.4, RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 softwares. The pooled sensitivity (Sen), pooled specificity (Spe), pooled positive likelihood ratio (+LR), pooled negative likelihood ratio (–LR), pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the area under curve (AUC) of the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (SROC) were used to assess the diagnostic value of different types and magnetic field intensity of cardiac magnetic resonance.ResultsTwenty diagnostic studies were included, which involved 1 357 patients. The results of meta-analysis showed that (1) based on patient: compared with the gold standard, the pooled Sen, Spe, +LR, –LR, DOR and the AUC of SROC, pre-test probability, post-test probability were (0.87, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.90), (0.88, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.92), (7.33, 95%CI 4.74 to 11.32), (0.15, 95%CI 0.11 to 0.20), (49.53, 95%CI 27.46 to 89.36), (0.93, 95%CI 0.91 to 0.95), 20.00% and 65.00%, respectively. (2) Based on blood vessels: the pooled Sen, Spe, +LR, –LR, DOR and the AUC of SROC, pre-test probability, post-test probability were (0.81, 95%CI 0.76 to 0.85), (0.87, 95%CI 0.81 to 0.91), (6.37, 95%CI 4.37 to 9.30), (0.22, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.27), (29.58, 95%CI 18.53 to 47.22), (0.89, 95%CI 0.86 to 0.92), 20.00% and 61.00%, respectively. (3) Subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in AUROC of different types of cardiac magnetic resonance, but significant difference was found in AUROC of 1.5T and 3.0T magnetic field intensity.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that, compared with gold standard, cardiac magnetic resonance can be regarded as an effective and feasible method for preoperative staging of breast cancer.
ObjectivesTo analyze the cooperation and basic characteristics on systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) in diagnostic test registered in PROSPERO platform, in order to provide reference for registering and preparing the SRs/MAs on diagnostic test.MethodsWe searched PROSPERO platform from inception to November 12th, 2017, to identify SRs/MAs on diagnostic test. Two reviewers independently screened records and extracted data by the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The forest figure was prepared by STATA 13.0 software. The figure of network of authors, organizations and countries were prepared by NetDraw software.ResultsA total of 240 SRs/MAs in diagnostic test were included. There was a serious imbalance in the quantity of the distribution of authors (1 050), organizations (360) and countries (34). These SRs/MAs in diagnostic test were related to 21 systematic diseases, with cancer ranking the first (52, 22%). Tissue biopsy was the most used gold standard, and imaging diagnosis was the most used diagnostic test. The most commonly retrieved English databases were PubMed, EMbase The Cochrane Library, while the Chinese databases were CNKI, WanFang Data and CBM. The search strategy were reported in 105 (43.8%) SRs/MAs on diagnostic test. The QUADAS-2 was used to assess the quality of included studies in 159 (66.3%) SRs/MAs in diagnostic test, and 105 (43.8%) SRs/MAs were supported by funding.ConclusionsThe absolute quantity of SRs/MAs in diagnostic test is still minimal. There are relationships among different authors, organizations and countries. The researcher should focus on the effective sizes and statistical methods in future.