PurposeTo systematically review the clinical value of three imaging examinations (Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Computed Tomography, and myelography) in the diagnosis of Lumbar Disc Herniation.MethodsDatabases including PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP were electronically searched to collect relevant studies on three imaging examinations in the diagnosis of Lumbar Disc Herniation from inception to July 1, 2021. Two reviewers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed by using Meta-DiSc 1.4 software and Stata 15.0 software.ResultsA total of 38 studies from 19 articles were included, involving 1,875 patients. The results showed that the pooled Sensitivity, pooled Specificity, pooled Positive Likelihood Ratio, pooled Negative Likelihood Ratio, pooled Diagnostic Odds Ratio, Area Under the Curve of Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic, and Q* were 0.89 (95%CI: 0.87–0.91), 0.83 (95%CI: 0.78–0.87), 4.57 (95%CI: 2.95–7.08), 0.14 (95%CI: 0.09–0.22), 39.80 (95%CI: 18.35–86.32), 0.934, and 0.870, respectively, for Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The pooled Sensitivity, pooled Specificity, pooled Positive Likelihood Ratio, pooled Negative Likelihood Ratio, pooled Diagnostic Odds Ratio, Area Under the Curve of Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic, and Q* were 0.82 (95%CI: 0.79–0.85), 0.78 (95%CI: 0.73–0.82), 3.54 (95%CI: 2.86–4.39), 0.19 (95%CI: 0.12–0.30), 20.47 (95%CI: 10.31–40.65), 0.835, and 0.792, respectively, for Computed Tomography. The pooled Sensitivity, pooled Specificity, pooled Positive Likelihood Ratio, pooled Negative Likelihood Ratio, pooled Diagnostic Odds Ratio, Area Under the Curve of Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic, and Q* were 0.79 (95%CI: 0.75–0.82), 0.75 (95%CI: 0.70–0.80), 2.94 (95%CI: 2.43–3.56), 0.29 (95%CI: 0.21–0.42), 9.59 (95%CI: 7.05–13.04), 0.834, and 0.767 respectively, for myelography.ConclusionThree imaging examinations had high diagnostic value. In addition, compared with myelography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging had a higher diagnostic value.

Background: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) in the diagnosis of acetabular labral tears.Methods: Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP were electronically searched to collect relevant studies on magnetic resonance in the diagnosis of acetabular labral tears from inception to September 1, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. RevMan 5.3, Meta Disc 1.4, and Stata SE 15.0 were used to investigate the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance in patients with acetabular labral tears.Results: A total of 29 articles were included, involving 1385 participants and 1367 hips. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, pooled positive likelihood ratio, pooled negative likelihood ratio, pooled diagnostic odds ratio, area under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic, and Q* of MRI for diagnosing acetabular labral tears were 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.80), 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.80), 2.19 (95% CI, 1.76-2.73), 0.48 (95% CI, 0.36-0.65), 4.86 (95% CI, 3.44-6.86), 0.75, and 0.69, respectively. The pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, pooled positive likelihood ratio, pooled negative likelihood ratio, pooled diagnostic odds ratio, area under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic, and Q* of MRA for diagnosing acetabular labral tears were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.89), 0.64 (95% CI, 0.57-0.71), 2.23 (95% CI, 1.57-3.16), 0.21 (95% CI, 0.16-0.27), 10.47 (95% CI, 7.09-15.48), 0.89, and 0.82, respectively.Conclusion: MRI has high diagnostic efficacy for acetabular labral tears, and MRA has even higher diagnostic efficacy. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, the above results should be further validated.

Background: To systematically review the efficacy of 11 anticoagulants in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total hip or knee arthroplasty. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, VIP, and China Biology Medicine databases were electronically searched for studies assessing the efficacy of different anticoagulants for the prevention of VTE after total hip or knee arthroplasty from January 1, 2010, to January 27, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and graded the evidence using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis. The network meta-analysis was then performed using Stata 16.0 software and R 4.1.0 software. Results: A total of 61 articles were included. The results of network meta-analysis showed that apixaban, edoxaban, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and darexaban were the most effective anticoagulants for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty ( P < .05), while there was no difference in the efficacy among the anticoagulants for the prevention of pulmonary embolism ( P > .05). Conclusion: Apixaban, edoxaban, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and darexaban have the best efficacy for the prevention of VTE after total hip or knee arthroplasty.

No abstract