A meta-analysis of the performance of ultrasound, hepatobiliary scintigraphy, CT and MRI in the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the recently reported relative diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI, and cholescintigraphy for diagnosing acute cholecystitis.

Methods: 2 radiologists independently performed systematic electronic searches for articles published between 2000 and 2021 and applied inclusion/exclusion criteria. 2 different radiologists extracted data from the articles and scored each with a methodological quality tool. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated with a bivariate linear mixed model. A second analysis made head-to-head comparisons (US vs. CT, US vs. cholescintigraphy). Factors were also analyzed for potential confounding effects on diagnostic accuracy.

Results: Of 6121 initial titles, 22 were included. The prevalence of cholecystitis varied widely across studies (9.4-98%). Pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates were 69% (confidence limit [CL] 62-76%) and 79% (CL 71-86%) for US, 91% (CL 86-94%) and 63% (CL 51-74%) for cholescintigraphy, 78% (CL 69-84%) and 81% (CL 71-88%) for CT, and 91% (CL 78-97%) and 93% (CL 70-99%) for MRI. Regarding head-to-head comparisons, the sensitivity of CT (87.6%, CL 70-96%) was significantly higher than US (66.8%, CL 43-84%), while specificities (81.7% with CL 54-95% for US, 91.9% with CL 67-99% for CT) were similar. The sensitivity of cholescintigraphy (87.4%, CL 76-94%) was significantly greater than US (61.6%, CL 44-77%), while the specificity of US (82%, CL 65-92%) was significantly higher than cholescintigraphy (68%, CL 47-84%).

Conclusion: Recent data suggests that CT may have a higher sensitivity than US for diagnosing acute cholecystitis, with similar specificity. Cholescintigraphy remains a highly sensitive modality with lower specificity than previously reported. MRI remains under studied, but with promising results.

Keywords: CT; Cholecystitis; Cholescintigraphy; MRI; Meta-analysis; US.