2018
DOI: 10.1042/bsr20180507
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Clinical utility of arterial spin labeling for preoperative grading of glioma

Abstract: There were obvious differences in biological behavior and prognosis between low- and high-grade gliomas, it is of great importance for clinicians to make a right judgement for preoperative grading. We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical utility of arterial spin labeling for preoperative grading. We searched the PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Weipu electronic databases for articles published through 10 November 2017 and used ‘arterial spin-labeling’ or … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

2
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…And the bivariate mixed effects model was used. We calculated the following parameters and their 95% confidence internals (CIs): sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnosis odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), An AUC of 1.0 represents the perfect discrimination ability (15)(16)(17). The heterogeneity within studies was examined using Q test and I 2 statistic.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…And the bivariate mixed effects model was used. We calculated the following parameters and their 95% confidence internals (CIs): sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnosis odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), An AUC of 1.0 represents the perfect discrimination ability (15)(16)(17). The heterogeneity within studies was examined using Q test and I 2 statistic.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For all analysis the following parameters were calculated for assessing the diagnostic ability, including sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). [15][16][17][18] We also conducted the subgroup analysis in study design (retrospective vs. perspective), lesion length (≤3 vs. ≤ 4), and sample size (<62 [sample size median] vs. >62). The sensitivity analysis was evaluated by four ways including goodness of fit, bivariate normality, influence analysis, and outlier detection.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For each study we extracted four folds data for analysis including TP, FP, FN, and TN. For all analysis the following parameters were calculated for assessing the diagnostic ability, including sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) . We also conducted the subgroup analysis in study design (retrospective vs. perspective), lesion length (≤3 vs. ≤ 4), and sample size (<62 [sample size median] vs. >62).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%