Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology and Tampere University Hospital, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Turku Clinical Research Center, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
PLoS One. 2022 Oct 26;17(10):e0276544. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276544. eCollection 2022.
To review the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) in differentiating abscesses from cellulitis in patients with neck infections, using surgical findings as the reference standard.
Previous studies in the last 32 years were searched from PubMed and Embase. Because of partial verification bias (only positive abscess findings are usually verified surgically), sensitivity and specificity estimates are unreliable, and we focused on positive predictive value (PPV). For all studies, PPV was calculated as the proportion of true positives out of all positives on imaging. To estimate pooled PPV, we used both the median with an interquartile range and a model-based estimate. For narrative purposes, we reviewed the utility of common morphological CT criteria for abscesses, such as central hypodensity, the size of the collection, bulging, rim enhancement, and presence of air, as well as sensitivity and specificity values reported by the original reports.
23 studies were found reporting 1453 patients, 14 studies in children (771 patients), two in adults (137 patients), and seven including all ages (545 patients). PPV ranged from 0.67 to 0.97 in individual studies, had a median of 0.84 (0.79-0.87), and a model-based pooled estimate of 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.80-0.85). Most morphological CT criteria had considerable overlap between abscesses and cellulitis.
The pooled estimate of PPV is 0.83 for diagnosing neck abscesses with CT. False positives may be due to limited soft tissue contrast resolution. Overall, none of the morphological criteria seem to be highly accurate for differentiation between abscess and cellulitis.
以手术结果为参照标准,回顾对比增强计算机断层扫描(CT)在鉴别颈部感染患者脓肿与蜂窝织炎的诊断准确性。
从 PubMed 和 Embase 中检索了过去 32 年的相关研究。由于存在部分验证偏倚(仅对阳性脓肿发现进行手术验证),敏感性和特异性估计值不可靠,因此我们重点关注阳性预测值(PPV)。对于所有研究,PPV 计算为影像学阳性结果中真阳性的比例。为了估计汇总的 PPV,我们使用中位数及其四分位距和基于模型的估计值。为了叙述目的,我们回顾了常见的形态学 CT 脓肿标准的应用价值,例如中央低密影、集合体大小、膨隆、边缘增强和存在空气,以及原始报告中报告的敏感性和特异性值。
共发现 23 项研究报告了 1453 例患者,其中 14 项研究为儿童(771 例),2 项为成人(137 例),7 项研究包括所有年龄段(545 例)。在个别研究中,PPV 范围为 0.67 至 0.97,中位数为 0.84(0.79-0.87),基于模型的汇总估计值为 0.83(95%置信区间为 0.80-0.85)。大多数形态学 CT 标准在脓肿和蜂窝织炎之间存在相当大的重叠。
使用 CT 诊断颈部脓肿的汇总 PPV 估计值为 0.83。假阳性可能是由于软组织对比分辨率有限所致。总体而言,形态学标准似乎都不能高度准确地区分脓肿和蜂窝织炎。