Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of standard diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM), and diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI), for differentiating benign and malignant soft tissue tumors (STTs). Materials and methods: A thorough search was carried out to identify suitable studies published up to September 2020. The quality of the studies involved was evaluated using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). The pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were calculated using bivariate mixed effects models. A subgroup analysis was also performed to explore the heterogeneity. Results: Eighteen studies investigating 1319 patients with musculoskeletal STTs (malignant, n =623; benign, n =696) were enrolled. Thirteen standard DWI studies using the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) showed that the pooled SEN and SPE of ADC were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.77-0.82) and 0.63 (95% CI: 0.60-0.67), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) calculated from the SROC curve was 0.806. The subgroup analysis indicated that the percentage of myxoid malignant tumors, magnet strength, study design, and ROI placement were significant factors affecting heterogeneity. Four IVIM studies showed that the AUCs calculated from the SROC curves of the parameters ADC and D were 0.859 and 0.874, respectively. The AUCs for the IVIM parameters pseudo diffusion coefficient (D*) and perfusion fraction (f) calculated from the SROC curve were 0.736 and 0.573, respectively. Two DKI studies showed that the AUCs of the DKI parameter mean kurtosis (MK) were 0.97 and 0.89, respectively. Conclusion: The DWI-derived ADC value and the IVIM DWI-derived D value might be accurate tools for discriminating musculoskeletal STTs, especially for non-myxoid SSTs, using more than two b values, with maximal b value ranging from 600 to 800 s/mm 2 , additionally, a high-field strength (3.0 T) optimizes the diagnostic performance.

No abstract

Background: Herpes zoster-associated pain [i.e., acute herpes zoster neuralgia (AHN) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN)] has the potential to cause significant patients’ burden and heath resource expenditure. PHN is refractory to the existing treatments, and the consensus is preventing the transition of AHN to PHN is better than treating PHN. Anticonvulsants (e.g., gabapentin, pregabalin) have been recommended as one of the first-line therapies for PHN. In practice, anticonvulsants have also decreased the severity and duration of AHN and reduced the incidence of PHN. Nevertheless, its clinical application to AHN is hampered by inadequate evidence for its efficacy and safety. We performed this protocol for a systematic review to explore the efficacy and safety of anticonvulsants for AHN. Besides, a benefit-risk assessment of anticonvulsants for AHN would be performed to estimate the extent to which these drugs could relieve symptoms and whether the benefits outweigh harms. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) was used to prepare our protocol and the results will be reported according to the PRISMA. We will search the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese VIP Information (VIP), Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases, from inception to August 2019. Furthermore, Clinicaltrials (http://www.clinicaltrials.com) and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn/abouten.aspx) will also be searched for relevant studies. Selection of eligible articles and data extraction will be independently performed by reviewers. We will record the characteristic information, pain outcomes, incidence of PHN and adverse effects. Data synthesis and other statistical analyses will be conducted using Review Manager Software 5.3 and STATA13.0. Furthermore, risk of bias assessment, meta-regression and subgroup analyses, publication bias assessment, grading of evidence will be performed for included studies. Ethics and dissemination: As this systematic review will be performed based on published data, no ethical approval is needed. The findings will be submitted in peer-reviewed journals for publication. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019133449.