Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Resonancia magnética versus tomografía computarizada para la detección de lesiones vasculares agudas en pacientes que presentan síntomas de accidente cerebrovascular

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007424.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 07 octubre 2009see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Diagnostic
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Accidentes cerebrovasculares

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Miriam Brazzelli

    Correspondencia a: Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    [email protected]

  • Peter AG Sandercock

    Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

  • Francesca M Chappell

    Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

  • Maria Grazia Celani

    A USL 2 dell'Umbria, Ospedale di Città della Pieve, Città della Pieve, Italy

  • Enrico Righetti

    A USL 2 dell'Umbria, Ospedale di Città della Pieve, Città della Pieve, Italy

  • Nicholas Arestis

    Department of Radiology, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK

  • Joanna M Wardlaw

    Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

  • Jonathan J Deeks

    Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Contributions of authors

MB, PS, and JW were responsible for the overall planning and conducting of the systematic review. MB, MGC, ER, and NA contributed to the quality assessment of included studies. MB, MGC, and ER extracted data from primary studies and interpreted results. MB, FC, and JD contributed to the statistical analyses. MB wrote the first draft of the review with additional input from PS, JW, and JD. MB supervised subsequent revisions based on comments from all authors. All authors have seen and approved the final version of the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates (http://www.sehd.scot.nhs.uk), UK.

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

All authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

We thank Carl Counsell, Constantine Gatsonis, and Stephanie Lewis for their comments on the protocol of the review; William Whiteley and Bartosz Karaszewski for assisting with the translation of non‐English papers; and Brenda Thomas for assisting with the literature searches.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2009 Oct 07

Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography for detection of acute vascular lesions in patients presenting with stroke symptoms

Review

Miriam Brazzelli, Peter AG Sandercock, Francesca M Chappell, Maria Grazia Celani, Enrico Righetti, Nicholas Arestis, Joanna M Wardlaw, Jonathan J Deeks

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007424.pub2

2009 Jul 08

Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography for detection of acute vascular lesions in patients presenting with stroke symptoms

Protocol

Miriam Brazzelli, Peter AG Sandercock, Francesca M Chappell, Maria Grazia Celani, Enrico Righetti, Nicholas Arestis, Steff C Lewis, Joanna M Wardlaw, Jonathan J Deeks

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007424

Differences between protocol and review

One author (S Lewis) contributed to the protocol but not to the review.

The non‐English articles for which a translation could not be obtained were not noted in the Appendix, as stated in the protocol under the 'Methods' section, but were listed amongst the excluded studies in the Characteristics of excluded studies table.

In the protocol, in the 'Data collection and analysis' section, we stated that two authors would independently review all relevant full‐text reports and assess the methodological quality of included studies. Instead, three authors reviewed the full‐text reports and four authors independently assessed the methodological quality of all included studies.

We were not able to use the hierarchical SROC methods (HSROC), as described in the 'Statistical analysis and data synthesis' in the protocol, as our data were too sparse to estimate the correlation between sensitivity and specificity for DWI and CT.