Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in choledocholithiasis

Table 1 Summarized details of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography detections and overall methodological quality of included studies

Ref.	Year	Patients, n	Assay method	Assay system	Assay results				Quality score
					TP	FP	FN	TN	STARD	QUADAS
Hochwald et al[42]	1998	48	MRCP, ERCP	1.5 T machine	19	3	1	25	15	11
Boraschi et al[43]	1999	278	MRCP, ERCP	1.5 T MR unit	71	5	5	197	16	11
de Lédinghen et al[44]	1999	32	EUS, MRCP, ERCP	1 T system	10	6	0	16	20	13
Lomas et al[45]	1999	69	MRCP, ERCP	1.5 T MR system	9	2	0	58	13	9
Varghese et al[46]	1999	100	MRCP, ERCP	1.5 GE unit	28	1	2	69	17	12
Stiris et al[47]	2000	50	MRCP, ERCP	1.0 T	28	1	4	17	17	12
Taylor et al[48]	2002	129	MRCP, ERCP	1.5 T MR system	45	9	1	74	18	12
Topal et al[49]	2003	69	MRCP, ERCP	1.5 T MR system	18	0	1	50	14	10
Kejriwal et al[50]	2004	81	MRCP, ERCP	Vision 1.5T MRI	20	1	2	58	13	10
Simone et al[51]	2004	65	MRCP, ERCP, IOC	1.0 T gyroscan NT	13	6	8	38	13	9
Dalton et al[52]	2005	69	MRCP, ERCP, IOC	1.5 T MR unit	16	2	1	50	11	7
Hallal et al[53]	2005	27	MRCP, ERCP, IOC	Unknown	4	2	0	21	14	10
Kondo et al[54]	2005	28	EUS, MRCP, HCT-C	1.5 T MR system	21	1	3	3	18	13
Moon et al[55]	2005	29	IDUS, MRCP, ERCP	1.5T MR system	16	1	4	8	17	11
Okada et al[56]	2005	40	CTCh, MRCP	1.5 T system	12	3	3	22	13	9
Shanmugam et al[57]	2005	221	MRCP, ERCP, EUS	0.5 T MRI	97	19	2	103	18	14
De Waele et al[58]	2007	104	MRCP, ERCP, EUS	1.5 T unit	19	2	4	79	16	11
Schmidt et al[59]	2007	57	MRCP, ERCP, EUS	1 T magnet	17	2	5	33	15	10
Hekimoglu et al[60]	2008	269	MRCP, ERCP	1.5 T unit	16	0	2	251	19	14
Nandalur et al[61]	2008	95	MRCP, ERCP	1.5 T system	21	1	7	66	18	13
Norero et al[62]	2008	125	MRCP, ERCP, CT	1.5 T MR system	83	10	3	29	15	11
Srinivasa et al[63]	2010	117	MRCP, ERCP, IOC	Siemens Vision 1.5 T	15	2	8	102	16	12
Bilgin et al[64]	2012	108	MRCP, ERCP, IOC	1.5 T MR scanner	28	3	6	71	16	11
Zhang et al[65]	2012	70	MRCP, MDCT	1.5 T MR system	19	2	1	48	18	13
Mandelia et al[66]	2013	30	MRCP, USG	1.5 T MR system	19	1	1	9	17	12

CT: Computed tomography; CTCh: Cholangiography computed tomography; ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; EUS: Endoscopic ultrasonography; FN: False-negative; FP: False-positive; HCT-C: Helical-computed-tomographic cholangiography; IDUS: Intraductal ultrasonography; IOC: Intraoperative cholangiography; MDCT: Multidetector-row computed tomography; MR: Magnetic resonance; MRCP: Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography; QUADAS: Quality assessment for studies of diagnostic accuracy; STARD: Standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy; TN: True-negative; TP: True-positive; USG: Ultrasonography.

Table 2 Additional characteristics of patients and methodologies in the included studies

Ref.	Year	Country	CBD/N-CBD, n	Reference standard	Cross-sectional design	Consecutive or random sampling	Blinded design	Prospective design
Hochwald et al[42]	1998	United States	20/28	ERCP	No	Yes	No	No
Boraschi et al[43]	1999	Italy	76/202	ERCP, PTC, IOC	No	Yes	No	No
de Lédinghen et al[44]	1999	France	10/-22	ERCP, IOC	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Lomas et al[45]	1999	United Kingdom	9/60	ERCP	No	Yes	No	Yes
Varghese et al[46]	1999	Ireland	30/70	ERCP	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Stiris et al[47]	2000	Norway	32/18	ERCP	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Taylor et al[48]	2002	Australia	46/83	ERCP	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Topal et al[49]	2003	Belgium	19/50	ERCP, IOC	No	Yes	No	No
Kejriwal et al[50]	2004	New Zealand	22/59	ERCP	No	Yes	No	No
Simone et al[51]	2004	France	21/44	ERCP, IOC	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Dalton et al[52]	2005	United Kingdom	17/52	ERCP, IOC	No	Yes	No	Yes
Hallal et al[53]	2005	United States	4/-23	IOC	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Kondo et al[54]	2005	Japan	24/-4	ERCP	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Moon et al[55]	2005	South Korea	20/-9	ERCP, IDUS	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Okada et al[56]	2005	Japan	15/25	IOC	No	Yes	Yes	No
Shanmugam et al[57]	2005	United Kingdom	99/122	ERCP, IOC	Yes	Yes	No	No
De Waele et al[58]	2007	Belgium	23/81	ERCP, IOC	No	Yes	No	Yes
Schmidt et al[59]	2007	Switzerland	22/35	EUS, ERCP	No	Yes	No	Yes
Hekimoglu et al[60]	2008	Turkey	18/251	ERCP	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Nandalur et al[61]	2008	United States	28/67	ERCP, PTC	Yes	Yes	No	No
Norero et al[62]	2008	Chile	86/39	ERCP	No	Yes	No	No
Srinivasa et al[63]	2010	Australia	23/104	ERCP, IOC	No	Yes	No	No
Bilgin et al[64]	2012	Turkey, Germany	34/74	ERCP, PTC	No	Yes	No	No
Zhang et al[65]	2012	China	20/50	MDCT	No	Yes	Yes	No
Mandelia et al[66]	2013	India	20/-10	ERCP	No	Yes	No	Yes

CBD: Common bile duct; ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; EUS: Endoscopic ultrasonography; IDUS: Intraductal ultrasonography; IOC: Intraoperative cholangiography; MDCT: Multidetector-row computed-tomography; PTC: Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography.

Table 3 Weighted meta-regression for the effects of design, methods and quality of studies on diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography detections

Covariate	Studies (n)	Coefficient	RDOR (95%CI)	P value
QUADAS ≥ 10	21	0.0830	1.09 (0.14-8.50)	0.9334
STARD ≥ 13	23	1.5100	4.53 (0.51-40.21)	0.1637
Prospective design	14	0.1260	1.13 (0.27-4.82)	0.8564
Cross-sectional design	7	0.0980	1.10 (0.24-5.06)	0.8936
Blinded design	11	-0.6850	0.50 (0.13-2.02)	0.3130
Consecutive/random sampling	25	-	-	-

RDOR: Relative diagnostic odds ratio; STARD: Standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy; QUADAS: Quality assessment for studies of diagnostic accuracy.