Department of Dentistry, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Department of Orthodontics, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Clin Oral Investig. 2019 May;23(5):2021-2040. doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02880-6. Epub 2019 Mar 28.
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of panoramic radiography (PR) in detecting calcified carotid artery atheroma (CCAA) compared with Doppler ultrasonography or angiography (the reference standard).
Cochrane, LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Open Grey, and ProQuest were searched. The reference lists of the included studies were also screened.
Observational studies.
Only studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of PR in detecting CCAA to Doppler ultrasonography or angiography (the reference standard) were included. The primary outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity. The secondary outcomes were negative predictive values, positive predictive values, diagnostic odds ratios, likelihood ratios (positive and negative), receiver operating characteristic curves, accuracy, and Youden's index. Two reviewers independently participated in the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment without language restriction. Risk of bias was assessed thought QUADAS-2, and the level of evidence was assessed through GRADE.
A total of 773 citations were identified after duplicates were removed, and 12 studies including 1002 patients were included in the final study. The sensitivity and specificity of the different selected studies varied substantially, with sensitivity ranging from 0.31 to 0.95 and specificity from 0.19 to 0.99.
Most studies reported excellent sensitivity and good specificity. The diagnostic accuracy of PR was good or excellent in 50% of the studies.
The identification of CCAA by PR can be a risk predictor for stroke when used as a secondary screening tool.
确定全景放射摄影(PR)检测钙化颈动脉粥样硬化(CCAA)的诊断准确性,与多普勒超声或血管造影(参考标准)相比。
Cochrane、LILACS、PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science、Google Scholar、Open Grey 和 ProQuest 进行了搜索。还筛选了纳入研究的参考文献列表。
观察性研究。
仅包括将 PR 检测 CCAA 的诊断准确性与多普勒超声或血管造影(参考标准)进行比较的研究。主要结局指标为敏感性和特异性。次要结局指标为阴性预测值、阳性预测值、诊断比值比、似然比(阳性和阴性)、受试者工作特征曲线、准确性和 Youden 指数。两名审查员独立参与研究选择、数据提取和偏倚风险评估,不限制语言。通过 QUADAS-2 评估偏倚风险,并通过 GRADE 评估证据水平。
去除重复项后共确定了 773 条引文,最终有 12 项研究包括 1002 名患者纳入最终研究。不同选定研究的敏感性和特异性差异很大,敏感性范围为 0.31 至 0.95,特异性范围为 0.19 至 0.99。
大多数研究报告了出色的敏感性和良好的特异性。在 50%的研究中,PR 的诊断准确性良好或优秀。
PR 识别 CCAA 可作为二级筛查工具,用于预测中风风险。