Advanced neuroimaging in the clinic: Critical appraisal of the evidence base

Adam Z. Fink, Lisa B. Mogil, Michael L. Lipton

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The shortage of high-quality systematic reviews in the field of radiology limits evidence-based integration of imaging methods into clinical practice and may perpetuate misconceptions regarding the efficacy and appropriateness of imaging techniques for specific applications. Diffusion tensor imaging for patients with mild traumatic brain injury (DTI-mTBI) and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI for patients with glioma (DSC-glioma) are applications of quantitative neuroimaging, which similarly detect manifestations of disease where conventional neuroimaging techniques cannot. We performed a critical appraisal of reviews, based on the current evidence-based medicine methodology, addressing the ability of DTImTBI and DSC-glioma to (a) detect brain abnormalities and/or (b) predict clinical outcomes. 23 reviews of DTI-mTBI and 26 reviews of DSC-glioma met criteria for inclusion. All reviews addressed detection of brain abnormalities, whereas 12 DTI-mTBI reviews and 22 DSC-glioma reviews addressed prediction of a clinical outcome. All reviews were assessed using a critical appraisal worksheet consisting of 19 yes/no questions. Reviews were graded according to the total number of positive responses and the 2011 Oxford Centre for evidence-based medicine levels of evidence criteria. Reviews addressing DTI-mTBI detection had moderate quality, while those addressing DSC-glioma were of low quality. Reviews addressing prediction of outcomes for both applications were of low quality. Five DTI-mTBI reviews, but only one review of DSC-glioma met criteria for classification as a meta-analysis/systematic/quantitative review.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number20150753
JournalBritish Journal of Radiology
Volume89
Issue number1064
DOIs
StatePublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Neuroimaging
Glioma
Evidence-Based Medicine
Brain Concussion
Diffusion Tensor Imaging
Brain
Radiology
Meta-Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Advanced neuroimaging in the clinic : Critical appraisal of the evidence base. / Fink, Adam Z.; Mogil, Lisa B.; Lipton, Michael L.

In: British Journal of Radiology, Vol. 89, No. 1064, 20150753, 2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{bb20f32eb6cd46d38654847fa8be4898,
title = "Advanced neuroimaging in the clinic: Critical appraisal of the evidence base",
abstract = "The shortage of high-quality systematic reviews in the field of radiology limits evidence-based integration of imaging methods into clinical practice and may perpetuate misconceptions regarding the efficacy and appropriateness of imaging techniques for specific applications. Diffusion tensor imaging for patients with mild traumatic brain injury (DTI-mTBI) and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI for patients with glioma (DSC-glioma) are applications of quantitative neuroimaging, which similarly detect manifestations of disease where conventional neuroimaging techniques cannot. We performed a critical appraisal of reviews, based on the current evidence-based medicine methodology, addressing the ability of DTImTBI and DSC-glioma to (a) detect brain abnormalities and/or (b) predict clinical outcomes. 23 reviews of DTI-mTBI and 26 reviews of DSC-glioma met criteria for inclusion. All reviews addressed detection of brain abnormalities, whereas 12 DTI-mTBI reviews and 22 DSC-glioma reviews addressed prediction of a clinical outcome. All reviews were assessed using a critical appraisal worksheet consisting of 19 yes/no questions. Reviews were graded according to the total number of positive responses and the 2011 Oxford Centre for evidence-based medicine levels of evidence criteria. Reviews addressing DTI-mTBI detection had moderate quality, while those addressing DSC-glioma were of low quality. Reviews addressing prediction of outcomes for both applications were of low quality. Five DTI-mTBI reviews, but only one review of DSC-glioma met criteria for classification as a meta-analysis/systematic/quantitative review.",
author = "Fink, {Adam Z.} and Mogil, {Lisa B.} and Lipton, {Michael L.}",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1259/bjr.20150753",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "89",
journal = "British Journal of Radiology",
issn = "0007-1285",
publisher = "British Institute of Radiology",
number = "1064",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Advanced neuroimaging in the clinic

T2 - Critical appraisal of the evidence base

AU - Fink, Adam Z.

AU - Mogil, Lisa B.

AU - Lipton, Michael L.

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - The shortage of high-quality systematic reviews in the field of radiology limits evidence-based integration of imaging methods into clinical practice and may perpetuate misconceptions regarding the efficacy and appropriateness of imaging techniques for specific applications. Diffusion tensor imaging for patients with mild traumatic brain injury (DTI-mTBI) and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI for patients with glioma (DSC-glioma) are applications of quantitative neuroimaging, which similarly detect manifestations of disease where conventional neuroimaging techniques cannot. We performed a critical appraisal of reviews, based on the current evidence-based medicine methodology, addressing the ability of DTImTBI and DSC-glioma to (a) detect brain abnormalities and/or (b) predict clinical outcomes. 23 reviews of DTI-mTBI and 26 reviews of DSC-glioma met criteria for inclusion. All reviews addressed detection of brain abnormalities, whereas 12 DTI-mTBI reviews and 22 DSC-glioma reviews addressed prediction of a clinical outcome. All reviews were assessed using a critical appraisal worksheet consisting of 19 yes/no questions. Reviews were graded according to the total number of positive responses and the 2011 Oxford Centre for evidence-based medicine levels of evidence criteria. Reviews addressing DTI-mTBI detection had moderate quality, while those addressing DSC-glioma were of low quality. Reviews addressing prediction of outcomes for both applications were of low quality. Five DTI-mTBI reviews, but only one review of DSC-glioma met criteria for classification as a meta-analysis/systematic/quantitative review.

AB - The shortage of high-quality systematic reviews in the field of radiology limits evidence-based integration of imaging methods into clinical practice and may perpetuate misconceptions regarding the efficacy and appropriateness of imaging techniques for specific applications. Diffusion tensor imaging for patients with mild traumatic brain injury (DTI-mTBI) and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI for patients with glioma (DSC-glioma) are applications of quantitative neuroimaging, which similarly detect manifestations of disease where conventional neuroimaging techniques cannot. We performed a critical appraisal of reviews, based on the current evidence-based medicine methodology, addressing the ability of DTImTBI and DSC-glioma to (a) detect brain abnormalities and/or (b) predict clinical outcomes. 23 reviews of DTI-mTBI and 26 reviews of DSC-glioma met criteria for inclusion. All reviews addressed detection of brain abnormalities, whereas 12 DTI-mTBI reviews and 22 DSC-glioma reviews addressed prediction of a clinical outcome. All reviews were assessed using a critical appraisal worksheet consisting of 19 yes/no questions. Reviews were graded according to the total number of positive responses and the 2011 Oxford Centre for evidence-based medicine levels of evidence criteria. Reviews addressing DTI-mTBI detection had moderate quality, while those addressing DSC-glioma were of low quality. Reviews addressing prediction of outcomes for both applications were of low quality. Five DTI-mTBI reviews, but only one review of DSC-glioma met criteria for classification as a meta-analysis/systematic/quantitative review.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84989825952&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84989825952&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1259/bjr.20150753

DO - 10.1259/bjr.20150753

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:84989825952

VL - 89

JO - British Journal of Radiology

JF - British Journal of Radiology

SN - 0007-1285

IS - 1064

M1 - 20150753

ER -