Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The accuracy of MRI in diagnosis of suspected deep vein thrombosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Magnetic Resonance
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be used to diagnose deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients for whom ultrasound examination is inappropriate or unfeasible. We undertook a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for DVT. We searched databases of medical literature and citation lists of retrieved articles. We selected studies that compared MRI with a reference standard in patients with suspected DVT or suspected pulmonary embolus, or high-risk asymptomatic patients. Data were analysed by random effects meta-analysis. We included 14 articles in the meta-analysis. Most compared MRI with venography in patients with clinically suspected DVT. The pooled estimate of sensitivity was 91.5% (95% CI: 87.5–94.5%) and the pooled estimate of specificity was 94.8% (95% CI: 92.6–96.5%). Sensitivity for proximal DVT was higher than sensitivity for distal DVT (93.9% versus 62.1%). However, pooled estimates should be interpreted with caution as estimates of both sensitivity and specificity were subject to significant heterogeneity (P<0.001). Individual studies reported sensitivity ranging from zero to 100%, while specificity ranged from 43 to 100%. MRI has equivalent sensitivity and specificity to ultrasound for diagnosis of DVT, but has been evaluated in many fewer studies, using a variety of different techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hull R, Hirsh J, Sackett DL, Taylor DW, Carter C, Turpie AG et al (1981) Clinical validity of a negative venogram in patients wiht clincally suspected venous thrombosis. Circulation 64(3):622–625

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lensing AW, Prandoni P, Buller HR, Casara D, Cogo A, Wouter ten Cate J (1990) Lower extremity venography with iohexol: results and complications. Radiology 177(2):503–505

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Goodacre S, Sampson F, Thomas S, van Beek EJ, Sutton AJ (2005) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for deep vein thrombosis. BMC Med Imaging 5:6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Das M, Muhlenbruch G, Mahnken A, Weiss C, Schoepf J, Leidecker C et al (2005) Optimized image reconstruction for detection of deep venous thrombosis at multidetector-row CT venography. Eur Radiol 16(2):269–275 Feb

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Loud PA, Katz DS, Bruce DA, Klippenstein DL, Grossman ZD (2001) Deep venous thrombosis with suspected pulmonary embolism: detection with combined CT venography and pulmonary angiography. Radiology 219(2):498–502

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lijmer JG, Mol JJ, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, van der Meulen JHP, Bossuyt PMM (1999) Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 282(11):1061–1066

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zamora J, Muriel A, Abrair V (2004) Meta-DiSc version beta (1.0.10): meta-analysis of diagnostic and screening tests

  8. Altman DG, Machin D, Bryant TN, Gardner MJ (2000) Confidence interval analysis (CIA) Statistical Software. Statistics with confidence. BMJ Books, London

  9. Genkins S, Durham N, Sostman HD (1988) Diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis:comparison of venography with four noninvasive techniques. Radiology 69 (part P):206

    Google Scholar 

  10. Spritzer CE, Sussman S, Blinder RA (1988) Deep venous thrombosis evaluation with limited-flip-angle, gradient-refocused MR imaging: preliminary experience. Radiology 166(2):371–375

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Spritzer CE, Sostman HD, Wilkes DC, Coleman RE (1990) Deep venous thrombosis: experience with gradient-echo MR imaging in 66 patients. Radiology 177(1):235–241

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Spritzer CE, Norconk JJ Jr, Sostman HD, Coleman RE (1993) Detection of deep venous thrombosis by magnetic resonance imaging. Chest 104(1):54–60

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Montgomery KD, Potter HG, Helfet DL (1995) Magnetic resonance venography to evaluate the deep venous system of the pelvis in patients who have an acetabular fracture. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A 77(11):1639–1649

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fraser DG, Moody AR, Davidson IR, Martel AL, Morgan PS (2003) Deep venous thrombosis: diagnosis by using venous enhanced subtracted peak arterial MR venography versus conventional venography. Radiology 226(3):812–820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fraser DG, Moody AR, Morgan PS, Martel AL, Davidson I (2002) Diagnosis of lower-limb deep venous thrombosis: a prospective blinded study of magnetic resonance direct thrombus imaging. Ann Intern Med 136(2):89–98

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sica GT, Pugach ME, Koniaris LS, Goldhaber SZ, Polak JF, Mukerjee A et al (2001) Isolated calf vein thrombosis: comparison of MR venography and conventional venography after initial sonography in symptomatic patients. Acad Radiol 8(9):856–863

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Jensen AD, Borris LC, Christiansen TM, Lundorf E (2001) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis in asymptomatic patients with injuries of the lower extremity. A pilot study. Thromb Res 101(6):423–426

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Catalano C, Pavone P, Laghi A, Scipioni A, Fanelli F, Assael FG et al (1997) Role of MR venography in the evaluation of deep venous thrombosis. Acta Radiol 38(5):907–912

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Laissy JP, Cinqualbre A, Loshkajian A, Henry-Feugeas MC, Crestani B, Riquelme C et al (1996) Assessment of deep venous thrombosis in the lower limbs and pelvis: MR venography versus duplex Doppler sonography. Am J Roentgenol 4:971–975

    Google Scholar 

  20. Larcom PG, Lotke PA, Steinberg ME, Holland G, Foster S (1996) Magnetic resonance venography versus contrast venography to diagnose thrombosis after joint surgery. Clin Orthop 331:209–215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Evans AJ, Sostman HD, Witty LA, Paulson EK, Spritzer CE, Hertzberg BS et al (1996) Detection of deep venous thrombosis: prospective comparison of MR imaging and sonography. J Magn Reson Imaging 6(1):44–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Evans AJ, Sostman HD, Knelson MH, Spritzer CE, Newman GE, Paine SS et al (1993) 1992 ARRS Executive Council Award. Detection of deep venous thrombosis: prospective comparison of MR imaging with contrast venography. Am J Roentgenol 161(1):131–139

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Carpenter JP, Holland GA, Baum RA, Owen RS, Carpenter JT, Cope C (1993) Magnetic resonance venography for the detection of deep venous thrombosis: comparison with contrast venography and duplex Doppler ultrasonography. J Vasc Surg 18(5):734–741

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pope CF, Dietz MJ, Ezekowitz MD, Gore JC (1991) Technical variables influencing the detection of acute deep vein thrombosis by magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Res Imaging 9(3):379–388

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Vukov LF, Berquist TH, King BF (1991) Magnetic resonance imaging for calf deep venous thrombophlebitis. Ann Emerg Med 20(5):497–499

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Erdman WA, Jayson HT, Redman HC, Miller GL, Parkey RW, Peshock RW (1990) Deep venous thrombosis of extremities: role of MR imaging in the diagnosis. Radiology 174(2):425–431

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Kathryn Paulucy for her clerical assistance and Angie Ryan for her help with the literature searches. The United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment R&D Programme funded this project (reference number 02/03/01). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the UK Department of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Services Research Section, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK

    Fiona C. Sampson & Steve W. Goodacre

  2. Academic Vascular Unit, The University of Sheffield, Coleridge House, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, S5 7AU, UK

    Steven M. Thomas

  3. Department of Radiology, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, 3895 JPP, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa, IA 2242-1077, USA

    Edwin J. R. van Beek

Authors
  1. Fiona C. Sampson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steve W. Goodacre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven M. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Edwin J. R. van Beek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fiona C. Sampson.

Appendix

Appendix

Search strategy

  1. 1.

    exp Venous Thrombosis/

  2. 2.

    deep vein thrombosis.tw.

  3. 3.

    phlebothrombosis.tw.

  4. 4.

    venous thrombos$.tw.

  5. 5.

    deep venous thrombosis.tw.

  6. 6.

    DVT.tw.

  7. 7.

    or/1–6

  8. 8.

    exp “Sensitivity and Specificity”/

  9. 9.

    exp Diagnostic Errors/

  10. 10.

    Reference Values/

  11. 11.

    Reproducibility of Results/

  12. 12.

    likelihood functions/

  13. 13.

    specificity.mp. [mp=title, abstract, cas registry/ec number word, mesh subject heading]

  14. 14.

    sensitivity.mp.

  15. 15.

    false negative$.mp.

  16. 16.

    false positive$.mp.

  17. 17.

    true negative$.mp.

  18. 18.

    true positive$.mp.

  19. 19

    predictive value$.mp.

  20. 20.

    reproducibility.mp.

  21. 21.

    ROC curve.mp.

  22. 22.

    Diagnos$.mp.

  23. 23.

    reference value$.mp.

  24. 24.

    likelihood function$.mp.

  25. 25.

    likelihood ratio$.mp.

  26. 26.

    or/8–25

  27. 27.

    exp Magnetic Resonance Imaging/

  28. 28.

    chemical shift imaging.tw.

  29. 29.

    mr tomography.tw.

  30. 30.

    mri.tw.

  31. 31.

    magnetic resonance imaging.tw.

  32. 32.

    magnetization transfer contrast imaging.tw.

  33. 33.

    nmr.tw.

  34. 34.

    proton spin tomography.tw.

  35. 35.

    zeugmatography.tw.

  36. 36.

    or /27–35

  37. 37.

    7 and 26 and 36

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sampson, F.C., Goodacre, S.W., Thomas, S.M. et al. The accuracy of MRI in diagnosis of suspected deep vein thrombosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 17, 175–181 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0178-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0178-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation