7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Diagnostic Accuracy of the Artificial Intelligence Methods in Medical Imaging for Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      , , , ,
      Journal of Clinical Medicine
      MDPI AG

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Tuberculosis (TB) remains one of the leading causes of death among infectious diseases worldwide. Early screening and diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) is crucial in TB control, and tend to benefit from artificial intelligence. Here, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of a variety of artificial intelligence methods in medical imaging for PTB. We searched MEDLINE and Embase with the OVID platform to identify trials published update to November 2022 that evaluated the effectiveness of artificial-intelligence-based software in medical imaging of patients with PTB. After data extraction, the quality of studies was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using a bivariate random-effects model. In total, 3987 references were initially identified and 61 studies were finally included, covering a wide range of 124,959 individuals. The pooled sensitivity and the specificity were 91% (95% confidence interval (CI), 89–93%) and 65% (54–75%), respectively, in clinical trials, and 94% (89–96%) and 95% (91–97%), respectively, in model-development studies. These findings have demonstrated that artificial-intelligence-based software could serve as an accurate tool to diagnose PTB in medical imaging. However, standardized reporting guidance regarding AI-specific trials and multicenter clinical trials is urgently needed to truly transform this cutting-edge technology into clinical practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references76

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies

              Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of 1 or more index tests against a reference standard, provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability in test accuracy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JCMOHK
                Journal of Clinical Medicine
                JCM
                MDPI AG
                2077-0383
                January 2023
                December 30 2022
                : 12
                : 1
                : 303
                Article
                10.3390/jcm12010303
                36615102
                60af4ab0-f6ff-4e72-949f-f0c60eeae65e
                © 2022

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article