Ultrasound imaging for the differential diagnosis of periapical lesions of endodontic origin in comparison with histopathology‐ A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) technique seems to be a valid and reliable tool for diagnosis and treatment in physiotherapy and has been widely studied in the lumbopelvic region the last three decades. The aims for this utility in clinical settings must be review through a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. A systematic review was designed following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines with PROSPERO registration and per review in all phases of the process using COVIDENCE, analysis of risk of bias and meta-analysis using REVMAN, and meta-regression calculation using STATA. Database screening provided 6544 references, out of which 321 reported narrative synthesis, and 21 reported quantitative synthesis, while only 7 of them provided comparable data to meta-analyze the variables pain and muscle thickness. In most cases, the forest plots showed considerable I2 heterogeneity indexes for multifidus muscle thickness (I2 = 95%), low back pain (I2 = 92%) and abdominal pain (I2 = 95%), not important for transversus abdominis muscle thickness (I2 = 22%), significant heterogenity (I2 = 69%) depending on the subgroup and not important internal oblique muscle thickness (I2 = 0%) and external oblique muscle thickness (I2 = 0%). Meta-regression did not provide significant data for the correlations between the variables analyzed and the intervention, age, and BMI (Body Mass Index). This review reveals that RUSI could contribute to a high reliability of the measurements in the lumbopelvic region with validity and reliability for the assessments, as well as showing promising results for diagnosis and intervention assessment in physiotherapy compared to the traditional model, allowing for future lines of research in this area.

Download Full-text

Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound imaging for the detection of facial fractures – systematic review and meta-analysis

10.37766/inplasy2020.12.0064 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Kalyana Pentapati ◽

Srikanth Gadicherla ◽

Anupam Singh ◽

Komal Smriti

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Diagnostic Accuracy ◽

Ultrasound Imaging ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Facial Fractures

Download Full-text

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for differential diagnosis of malignant and benign ovarian tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology ◽

10.1002/uog.14800 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 46 (3) ◽

pp. 277-283 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

X. Ma ◽

Y. Zhao ◽

B. Zhang ◽

W. Ling ◽

H. Zhuo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Differential Diagnosis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Ovarian Tumors ◽

Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽

Contrast Enhanced ◽

Benign Ovarian Tumors

Download Full-text

Can physical testing be used to distinguish between migraine and cervicogenic headache sufferers? A protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031587 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (11) ◽

pp. e031587 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Ernesto Anarte ◽

Gabriela Ferreira Carvalho ◽

Annika Schwarz ◽

Kerstin Luedtke ◽

Deborah Falla

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Differential Diagnosis ◽

Diagnostic Accuracy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cervicogenic Headache ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Black Scale ◽

Physical Tests ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Asymptomatic Subjects

IntroductionDifferential diagnosis of migraine and cervicogenic headache (CGH) can be challenging given the large overlap of symptoms, commonly leading to misdiagnosis and ineffective treatment. In order to strengthen the differential diagnosis of headache, previous studies have evaluated the utility of physical tests to examine for musculoskeletal impairment, mainly in the cervical spine, which could be provoking or triggering headache. However, no systematic review has attempted to evaluate whether physical tests can differentiate CGH from migraine or both conditions from asymptomatic subjects.Methods/analysisA systematic review protocol has been designed and is reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). A sensitive topic-based search strategy is planned which will include databases, hand searching of key journals and consultation of relevant leading authors in this field. Terms and keywords will be selected after discussion and agreement. Two independent reviewers will perform the search and select studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, including any cohort or observational studies evaluating the topic of this review; a third reviewer will confirm accuracy. A narrative synthesis will be developed for all included studies and, if possible, a meta-analysis will be conducted. The overall quality of the evidence will be assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist for diagnostic accuracy studies and the Downs and Black scale for those studies where the QUADAS-2 checklist cannot be applied.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required since no patient information will be collected. The results will provide a deeper understanding about the possibility of using physical tests to differentiate cervicogenic headache from migraine and from asymptomatic subjects, which has direct relevance for clinicians managing people with headache. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019135269.

Download Full-text