Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Mar;127(3):1029-44. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182043630.

The effect of study design biases on the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for detecting silicone breast implant ruptures: a meta-analysis.

Author information

  • 1Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich. 48109-5340, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recommended that all silicone breast implant recipients undergo serial screening to detect implant rupture with magnetic resonance imaging. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of study design biases on the estimation of magnetic resonance imaging diagnostic accuracy measures.

METHODS:

Studies were identified using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases. Two reviewers independently screened potential studies for inclusion and extracted data. Study design biases were assessed using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool and the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies checklist. Meta-analyses estimated the influence of biases on diagnostic odds ratios.

RESULTS:

Among 1175 identified articles, 21 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies using magnetic resonance imaging (10 of 16) and ultrasound (10 of 13) examined symptomatic subjects. Magnetic resonance imaging studies evaluating symptomatic subjects had 14-fold higher diagnostic accuracy estimates compared with studies using an asymptomatic sample (relative diagnostic odds ratio, 13.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.83 to 104.6) and 2-fold higher diagnostic accuracy estimates compared with studies using a screening sample (relative diagnostic odds ratio, 1.89; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 75.7).

CONCLUSIONS:

Many of the published studies using magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound to detect silicone breast implant rupture are flawed with methodologic biases. These methodologic shortcomings may result in overestimated magnetic resonance imaging diagnostic accuracy measures and should be interpreted with caution when applying the data to a screening population.

Comment in

PMID:
21364405
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID:
PMC3080104
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk