Author
Listed:
- Jon Hagelberg
- Bernd Pape
- Jaakko Heikkinen
- Janne Nurminen
- Kimmo Mattila
- Jussi Hirvonen
Abstract
Objectives: To review the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) in differentiating abscesses from cellulitis in patients with neck infections, using surgical findings as the reference standard. Materials and methods: Previous studies in the last 32 years were searched from PubMed and Embase. Because of partial verification bias (only positive abscess findings are usually verified surgically), sensitivity and specificity estimates are unreliable, and we focused on positive predictive value (PPV). For all studies, PPV was calculated as the proportion of true positives out of all positives on imaging. To estimate pooled PPV, we used both the median with an interquartile range and a model-based estimate. For narrative purposes, we reviewed the utility of common morphological CT criteria for abscesses, such as central hypodensity, the size of the collection, bulging, rim enhancement, and presence of air, as well as sensitivity and specificity values reported by the original reports. Results: 23 studies were found reporting 1453 patients, 14 studies in children (771 patients), two in adults (137 patients), and seven including all ages (545 patients). PPV ranged from 0.67 to 0.97 in individual studies, had a median of 0.84 (0.79–0.87), and a model-based pooled estimate of 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.80–0.85). Most morphological CT criteria had considerable overlap between abscesses and cellulitis. Conclusions: The pooled estimate of PPV is 0.83 for diagnosing neck abscesses with CT. False positives may be due to limited soft tissue contrast resolution. Overall, none of the morphological criteria seem to be highly accurate for differentiation between abscess and cellulitis.
Suggested Citation
Jon Hagelberg & Bernd Pape & Jaakko Heikkinen & Janne Nurminen & Kimmo Mattila & Jussi Hirvonen, 2022.
"Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT for neck abscesses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of positive predictive value,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-15, October.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0276544
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276544
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0276544. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.