Kent D L, Haynor D R, Larson E B, Deyo R A
Health Services Research and Development Service, VA Medical Center, Seattle, WA 98108.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992 May;158(5):1135-44. doi: 10.2214/ajr.158.5.1533084.
We undertook a literature synthesis of CT, MR, and myelographic studies to evaluate what is known about the diagnostic accuracy of these imaging tests for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis in adults without prior surgery. From 116 possibly relevant studies, we reviewed 14 articles that included cases of spinal stenosis with a reference standard other than the imaging tests of interest. Of the studies we reviewed, two involved only MR, nine only CT, and three used both; six studies included myelography. Rating categories of A, B, C, or D were assigned for the quality of research methods used to estimate diagnostic accuracy. All studies received either a C or D rating. Common methodologic problems were failure to assemble a representative cohort for study, small sample size, and failure to maintain independence between image readings and reference standards. Sensitivity ranged from 0.81 to 0.97 for MR, from 0.70 to 1.0 for CT, and from 0.67 to 0.78 myelography. Studies varied greatly in case selection, definition of test and disease categories, and geographic locale, so no pooled estimates could be derived. In asymptomatic patients, abnormal findings appeared on CT or MR in 4-28% of cases and were more common in the elderly. Published studies of the value of CT and MR for the diagnosis of lumbar stenosis lack methodologic rigor and do not permit strong conclusions about the relative diagnostic accuracies of these procedures. For the present, the choice between MR or CT depends on issues such as costs, reimbursements, access to equipment, skill of radiologists, and patient safety. Better studies will be needed to document claims for improvements in imaging accuracy as MR technologies evolve. These studies should emphasize larger sample sizes, more attention to research designs that avoid methodologic biases, and the contribution of imaging diagnoses to ultimate clinical outcome.
我们对CT、MR和脊髓造影研究进行了文献综述,以评估这些影像学检查对未接受过手术的成年腰椎管狭窄症诊断的诊断准确性。在116项可能相关的研究中,我们回顾了14篇文章,这些文章纳入了椎管狭窄病例,并采用了除感兴趣的影像学检查之外的参考标准。在我们回顾的研究中,两项仅涉及MR,九项仅涉及CT,三项同时使用了两者;六项研究包括脊髓造影。根据用于评估诊断准确性的研究方法质量,将研究分为A、B、C或D等级。所有研究的评级均为C或D。常见的方法学问题包括未能组建具有代表性的研究队列、样本量小以及图像解读与参考标准之间未能保持独立性。MR的敏感性范围为0.81至0.97,CT为0.70至1.0,脊髓造影为0.67至0.78。研究在病例选择、检查和疾病类别的定义以及地理位置等方面差异很大,因此无法得出汇总估计值。在无症状患者中,4%-28%的病例在CT或MR上出现异常发现,且在老年人中更为常见。已发表的关于CT和MR对腰椎管狭窄症诊断价值的研究缺乏方法学严谨性,无法就这些检查的相对诊断准确性得出有力结论。目前,MR和CT之间的选择取决于成本、报销、设备可及性、放射科医生的技能以及患者安全等问题。随着MR技术的发展,需要更好的研究来证明影像学准确性的提高。这些研究应强调更大的样本量,更加关注避免方法学偏倚的研究设计,以及影像学诊断对最终临床结局的贡献。