Objective: Ultrasonography (US) demonstrated to be a promising tool for the diagnosis of calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate deposition disease (CPPD). The aim of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to collect the definitions for the US elementary lesions and to summarize the available data about US diagnostic accuracy in CPPD. Methods: We systematically reviewed all the studies that considered US as the index test for CPPD diagnosis without restrictions about the reference test or that provided definitions about US identification of CPPD. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each study and definitions were extrapolated. Subgroup analyses were planned by anatomical site included in the index text and different reference standards. Results: Thirty-seven studies were included in this review. All the studies were eligible for the collection of US findings and all definitions were summarized. US description of elementary lesions appeared heterogeneous among the studies. Regarding US accuracy, 13 articles entered in the meta-analysis. Considering each joint structure, the sensitivity ranged between 0.77 (0.63-0.87) and 0.34 (0.16-0.58) while the specificity varies between 1.00 (0.89-1.00) and 0.92 (0.16-1.00). Considering the reference standards used, the sensibility ranged between 0.34 (0.02-0.65) and 0.87 (0.76-0.99) while specificity ranged between 0.84 (0.52-1.00) and 1.00 (0.99-1.00). Conclusion: US is potentially a useful tool for the diagnosis of CPPD but universally accepted definitions and further testing are necessary in order to assess the role of the technique in the diagnostic process.

Ultrasound in the diagnosis of calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate deposition disease. A systematic literature review and a meta-analysis

SCIRE', Carlo Alberto
Ultimo
2016

Abstract

Objective: Ultrasonography (US) demonstrated to be a promising tool for the diagnosis of calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate deposition disease (CPPD). The aim of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to collect the definitions for the US elementary lesions and to summarize the available data about US diagnostic accuracy in CPPD. Methods: We systematically reviewed all the studies that considered US as the index test for CPPD diagnosis without restrictions about the reference test or that provided definitions about US identification of CPPD. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each study and definitions were extrapolated. Subgroup analyses were planned by anatomical site included in the index text and different reference standards. Results: Thirty-seven studies were included in this review. All the studies were eligible for the collection of US findings and all definitions were summarized. US description of elementary lesions appeared heterogeneous among the studies. Regarding US accuracy, 13 articles entered in the meta-analysis. Considering each joint structure, the sensitivity ranged between 0.77 (0.63-0.87) and 0.34 (0.16-0.58) while the specificity varies between 1.00 (0.89-1.00) and 0.92 (0.16-1.00). Considering the reference standards used, the sensibility ranged between 0.34 (0.02-0.65) and 0.87 (0.76-0.99) while specificity ranged between 0.84 (0.52-1.00) and 1.00 (0.99-1.00). Conclusion: US is potentially a useful tool for the diagnosis of CPPD but universally accepted definitions and further testing are necessary in order to assess the role of the technique in the diagnostic process.
2016
Filippou, G; Adinolfi, A; Iagnocco, A; Filippucci, E; Cimmino, M. A; Bertoldi, I; Di Sabatino, V; Picerno, V; Delle Sedie, A; Sconfienza, L. M; Fredia...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S1063458416001552-main.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: versione editoriale
Tipologia: Full text (versione editoriale)
Licenza: PUBBLICO - Pubblico con Copyright
Dimensione 1.11 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.11 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2365664
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 17
  • Scopus 66
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 54
social impact