Background: Pneumonia is a ubiquitous health condition with severe outcomes. The advancement of ultrasonography techniques allows its application in evaluating pulmonary diseases, providing safer and accessible bedside therapeutic decisions compared to chest X-ray and chest computed tomography (CT) scan. Because of its aforementioned benefits, we aimed to confirm the diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound (LUS) for pneumonia in adults. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed of Medline, Cochrane and Crossref, independently by two authors. The selection of studies proceeded based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria without restrictions to particular study designs, language or publication dates and was followed by data extraction. The gold standard reference in the included studies was chest X-ray/CT scan or both. Results: Twenty-nine (29) studies containing 6702 participants were included in our meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and PPV were 92% (95% CI: 91–93%), 94% (95% CI: 94 to 95%) and 93% (95% CI: 89 to 96%), respectively. Pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios were 16 (95% CI: 14 to 19) and 0.08 (95% CI: 0.07 to 0.09). The area under the ROC curve of LUS was 0. 9712. Conclusions: LUS has high diagnostic accuracy in adult pneumonia. Its contribution could form an optimistic clue in future updates considering this condition.

Background: Solid pancreatic lesions are crucial to identify because of their high incidence rate and their poor survival rate. Surgical biopsy, ultrasonography, computed tomography, MRI, and PET-CT are examples of diagnostic tools. Although common, endoscopic ultrasonography guided biopsy carries a risk of needle track seeding. A more effective and affordable method for determining the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions is contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS). CEUS is a less nephrotoxic method that uses a contrast chemical to distinguish between teratomas, benign tumors, and neuroendocrine tumors. The goal of this meta-analysis is to evaluate how well CEUS can identify solid pancreatic lesions for use in clinical diagnostic procedures. Methodology: Medical literature comprehensively searched and reviewed without restrictions to particular study designs, or publication dates using PubMed, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar databases for all relevant literature. The extraction of necessary data proceeded after specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Meta Analysis included 27 RCTs and 3061 patients, and analyzed using the QualSyst yool. The risk of bias was evaluated by using QUADAS-2 analysis. The statistical software packages MetaDiSc 1.4, RevMan (Review Manager, version 5.3), SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 20) and Excel in Stata 14 were used to perform the statistical analyses. Result: According to the findings of four studies, CEUS demonstrates high sensitivity, with values equal to or above 95%, and one study indicates specificity above 95%. True Positive (TP) and True Negative (TN) values are reported as 2080 and 621, respectively, while False Positive (FP) and False Negative (FN) values are noted as 124 and 236. With a 95% confidence interval, CEUS sensitivity is calculated as 0.90 (range: 0.89 to 0.91) and specificity as 0.83 (range: 0.80 to 0.86). The positive predictive value (PPV) of CEUS is estimated at approximately 94.3%. These results highlight CEUS as a promising tool for diagnosing pancreatic lesions. Conclusion: The study concluded that CEUS (Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound) is an important diagnostic test for pancreatic lesions. This is due to their high sensitivity and specificity, along with other aspects like enhanced visualization, real-time imaging, and safety benefits. Additionally, CEUS is cost-effective, making it a practical choice in healthcare settings with budget constraints. Thus, CEUS remains a valuable asset for healthcare professionals in their efforts to accurately diagnose pancreatic lesions.

Background This meta-analysis presents a comparison between Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA) and Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA), to diagnose a pulmonary embolism. Computed tomography presents the advantage of imaging the entire thorax, facilitating the diagnosis of conditions that are commonly mistaken for pulmonary embolism, such as pneumonia, aortic dissection, and malignancy. UK and US guidelines have established CT amongst the basic investigations for pulmonary embolism. MRA does not require the use of ionizing radiation or iodinated contrast, thus making it possible for routine use of multiphasic acquisitions as well as for repeated contrast injections Methodology For the collection of the data, a search was done by two individuals using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases for all relevant literature. Full - Text Articles written only in English were considered. Each qualifying paper was independently evaluated by two reviewers. Each article was analyzed for the number of patients, their age, procedure modality, and incidence of the pre decided complications. Results The results also showed a high positive predictive value of 0.947 or 94.7% for MRA in the diagnosis of Pulmonary embolism, as compared with CTPA. Some analyses have marked MRA to have low specificity. These results establish MRA as a respectable alternative for diagnosis of APE, especially in cases when reducing radiation exposure is desired. However, the gold standard of diagnosis remains Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography. Conclusion As the results show, though MRA has high statistical value for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, it also has its drawbacks. MRA cannot be used in severely ill patients as it continues to be challenging, with the longer scan times and multiple breath holds that are required in different MR protocols are difficult to follow in these patients. CTPA remains the gold standard for diagnosis of Pulmonary embolism, with MRA as a secondary test used when CTPA is contraindicated.

Background: Having breast cancer and receiving treatment for it is viewed as a very traumatic experience for women. From the recent advances in breast cancer diagnosis protocol; The triple assessment for a lump in the breast is the best practice and its application towards early disease detection is crucial. For which, 2D mammography is used. The limitation of this technique is a potential tissue overlap in dense breasts. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a new imaging technology that can address the limitations of 2D mammography. This study aims to highlight the use of DBT. Methods: The study population included all women aged from 18 to 80. For this analysis, the subdivision of the population is not created. A total of 28 RCTs with a total of 1,735,126 patients were selected for the DBT+FFDM vs FFDM study and 5 RCTs with a total of 554,419 patients were selected for the DBT vs FFDM study. Results: For the DBT+FFDM vs FFDM; The overall diagnostic odds ratio was 1.28 with a 95%CI [1.22-1.33], the Decrease in RR is 2.43% and the increase in CDR is 1.583. for DBT vs FFDM; the overall diagnostic odds ratio was 1.38 with a 95%CI [1.28-1.50], a decrease in RR is 1.70%, and an increase in CDR is 1.4. Conclusion: DBT+FFDM and DBT do outweigh FFDM alone.

Background Prostate cancer is a malignancy that originates in the prostate gland,and can vary in aggressiveness, often requiring a combination of diagnostic methods and imaging for accurate detection and management. In an attempt to ensure timely diagnosis and prevent complications, the choice of the right diagnostic modality becomes crucial. MRI has gained prominence in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. MRI aids prostate cancer diagnosis by pinpointing suspicious areas for in-depth investigation and guiding precise biopsies, enhancing accuracy. It also informs treatment plans by visualizing tumour extent and assists in monitoring disease progression during active surveillance. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to ascertain the accuracy of MRI in diagnosing prostate cancer. Methodology Medical literature was comprehensively searched and reviewed without restrictions to particular study designs, or publication dates using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases for all relevant literature. The extraction of necessary data proceeded after specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. In this Meta-Analysis, A total of 47 RCTs with 13,211 subjects were selected for comparing Multiparametric MRI vs. Gold Standard and A total of 23 RCTs with 3440 subjects were selected for comparing Biparametric MRI vs Gold Standard. Two writers independently assessed the calibre of each study as well as the use of the Cochrane tool for bias risk apprehension. The statistical software packages RevMan (Review Manager, version 5.3), SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 20), and Excel in Stata 14 were used to perform the statistical analyses. Results We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of multiparametric as well as biparametric MRI. The Multiparametric MRI demonstrates a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% confidence interval: 0.83 - 0.85) and specificity of 0.69 (95% confidence interval: 0.68 - 0.70). Meanwhile, Biparametric MRI shows a sensitivity of 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.84 - 0.86) and specificity of 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.69 - 0.73). Conclusion In conclusion, both Multiparametric MRI and Biparametric MRI exhibit high sensitivity values of 0.84 and 0.85, respectively, indicating their ability to accurately detect prostate cancer. MRI is a robust diagnostic tool for prostate cancer due to its high-resolution imaging and multiparametric approach. It enables targeted biopsies, informs treatment plans, and aids in active surveillance.

Background: Appendicitis is a common cause of emergency department visits and appendectomies in the US, with 250,000 appendectomies performed annually. Current diagnostic methods, such as clinical findings, lead to inaccuracies and missed diagnoses, increasing morbidity and mortality. The only solution is surgery, but current hematological tests are not reliable and may lead to unnecessary surgery if the underlying etiology is self-limiting or requires medical treatment. This study explores the role of MRI as a diagnostic modality that can replace US/CT and supplement traditional clinical diagnostic signs while avoiding ionizing radiation and intravenous contrast medium. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to determine the accuracy of MRI as a diagnostic modality in diagnosing appendicitis, addressing concerns about diagnostic modalities and their adverse effects, and addressing the necessity and success of relevant interventions. Methods: Medical literature was comprehensively searched and reviewed without restrictions to particular study designs, or publication dates using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases for all relevant literature formulated in English. The extraction of necessary data proceeded after specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Meta Analysis was performed for 5206 patients, with 35 RCTs being selected. Analysis was done using the QualSyst tool, wherein two writers independently assessed the caliber of each study as well as the use of the Cochrane tool for bias risk apprehension. The statistical software packages RevMan (Review Manager, version 5.3), SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 20), and Excel in Stata 14 were used to perform the statistical analyses along with other analytical software. Results: MRI had an overall sensitivity of over 95%, an overall specificity of 94.2% with a PPV of 0.875 in comparison to CT scan in the diagnosis and intervention regarding appendicitis. Conclusion: These findings strongly suggest that MRI is a reasonable alternative to CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis in hospitals with appropriate access to this technology for reasons about accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility as well as addressing safety concerns.