Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy of vessel wall MRI in intracranial vasculopathies, highlighting its utility for lesion characterization.
Vessel wall magnetic resonance imaging (VW-MRI) provides superior capabilities, compared to traditional angiography, in evaluating intracranial vessel walls. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of VW-MRI in intracranial vasculopathies. This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect were searched to identify studies investigating the diagnostic performance of VW-MRI in intracranial vasculopathies. Eligible studies should report sufficient data to construct 2 × 2 contingency tables. Disease categories were included only if at least two studies were available. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) were estimated using a bivariate model. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tool. Ten studies on intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 0.877; specificity 0.808; DOR 34.2; AUC 0.907). Subgroup analyses confirmed reliability in detecting stenosis, distinguishing culprit from non-culprit lesions, and identifying eccentric wall thickening as a biomarker. Six studies on intracranial vasculitis showed strong diagnostic performance of concentric wall enhancement (sensitivity 0.817; specificity 0.864; DOR 44.9; AUC 0.909). Two studies on intracranial dissection reported high accuracy (sensitivity 0.901; specificity 0.829; DOR 58.1; AUC 0.930). VW-MRI demonstrates excellent diagnostic performance for ICAD, intracranial vasculitis, and dissection. It provides added value beyond conventional imaging by enabling evaluation of vessel wall features and lesion characterization. Further high-quality studies, with larger sample sizes, are needed to validate its clinical utility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Albalawi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: