↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic accuracy of MR imaging for direct visualization of lumbar pars defect in children and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Diagnostic accuracy of MR imaging for direct visualization of lumbar pars defect in children and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
European Spine Journal, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00586-017-5305-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amira Dhouib, Anne Tabard-Fougere, Sylviane Hanquinet, Romain Dayer

Abstract

The accurate diagnosis of spondylolysis is widely made with CT scan considered as the gold standard. However, CT represents significant radiation exposure particularly substantial in a young and sometimes still growing population. Although the role of MRI in identifying edema/inflammation within the pars as an active lesion is proved, its ability to demonstrate and classify pars fracture line as same as CT is still controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to determine sensitivity and specificity of MRI in the direct visualisation of the pars defect. The PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched for relevant studies from the earliest researchable time to December 2016 for cases in which the accuracy of MRI was reported for the diagnosis of spondylolysis in young patients. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality for each selected study using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 tool. A meta-analysis of the reported sensitivity and specificity of pooled data of selected studies was performed by a systematic review. For each selected study, sensitivity and specificity was recalculated, by considering only direct visualisation of a fracture line of the pars. The hierarchic summary receiver operating characteristic curve was generated to estimate the diagnostic performance of MR imaging. Heterogeneity was also tested. The systematic review identified 4 out of a total of 1300 studies to be included in the meta-analysis. On a per-pars basis (a total of 1122 pars), the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the MRI for the direct diagnosis of a pars defect were 81% (95% CI 54-94%) and 99% (95% CI 98-100%), respectively. A high overall heterogeneity (I2 = 79.5%) was computed with respective high and low heterogeneity on sensitivity (I2 = 87.9%) and specificity (I2 = 38.4%). This meta-analysis demonstrated a high diagnostic performance of MR imaging for the diagnosis of a pars defect in young adults. This technique may be considered as a first-line imaging technique as it helps to avoid exposure to ionising radiation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 17%
Other 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 11 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Unspecified 1 2%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 14 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,129,946
of 23,189,371 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#189
of 4,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,004
of 319,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#1
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,189,371 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,709 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,950 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.