Why the study?
What is the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced helical CT compared to conventional angiography for pulmonary embolism?
What is the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced helical CT compared to conventional angiography for pulmonary embolism?
A systematic review of CT angiography for pulmonary embolism diagnosis prior to 2003 found a wide range of reported sensitivities, with only a minority exceeding 90%, highlighting the need for caution in interpreting pooled estimates and a lack of data on newer MDCT scanners.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Variable CT performance for PE warrants caution with negative scans in high suspicion; leaves open accuracy of modern MDCT scanners.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to summarize systematically the published evidence describing the accuracy of contrast-enhanced helical CT for diagnosing pulmonary embolism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected all systematic reviews published before December 2003 that evaluated the accuracy of CT angiography for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. We also selected all prospective studies from the same time period in the primary literature in which all subjects underwent both CT and conventional angiography, the latter being considered the reference standard. Articles were identified through a computerized MEDLINE search and by other means. The quality and content of each article were evaluated independently by pairs of researchers. RESULTS: Six systematic reviews and eight primary studies were selected. The combined sensitivities of CT for detecting pulmonary embolism ranged from 66% to 93% across the systematic reviews and the combined specificities ranged from 89% to 97%. Only one of the reviews reported a combined sensitivity of greater than 90%. Among the eight primary studies, the sensitivities ranged from 45% to 100% and specificities ranged from 78% to 100%. Only three of the eight primary studies reported a sensitivity greater than 90%. None of the primary studies used scanners with four or more detectors. CONCLUSION: A systematic literature review revealed a wide range of reported sensitivities, only a minority of which exceeded 90%. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity reported by systematic literature reviews should be interpreted with caution because of potential selection bias and heterogeneity in the reviewed studies. Accuracy studies of recent generations of MDCT scanners are not yet available despite the current dissemination of this technology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eng et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: