Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2006 Aug 14:6:9.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2342-6-9.

MRCP compared to diagnostic ERCP for diagnosis when biliary obstruction is suspected: a systematic review

Eva C Kaltenthaler  1 , Stephen J Walters, Jim Chilcott, Anthony Blakeborough, Yolanda Bravo Vergel, Steven Thomas
Affiliations

MRCP compared to diagnostic ERCP for diagnosis when biliary obstruction is suspected: a systematic review

Eva C Kaltenthaler et al. BMC Med Imaging. .

Abstract

Background: Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is an alternative to diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for investigating biliary obstruction. The use of MRCP, a non-invasive procedure, may prevent the use of unnecessary invasive procedures. The aim of the study was to compare the findings of MRCP with those of ERCP by the computation of accuracy statistics.

Methods: Thirteen electronic bibliographic databases, covering biomedical, science, health economics and grey literature were searched. A systematic review of studies comparing MRCP to diagnostic ERCP in patients with suspected biliary obstruction was conducted. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, acceptability and adverse events were reported.

Results: 25 studies were identified reporting several conditions including choledocholithiasis (18 studies), malignancy (four studies), obstruction (three studies), stricture (two studies) and dilatation (five studies). Three of the 18 studies reporting choledocholithiasis were excluded from the analysis due to lack of data, or differences in study design. The sensitivity for the 15 studies of choledocholithiasis ranged from 0.50 to 1.00 while specificity ranged from 0.83 to 1.00. The positive likelihood ratio ranged: from 5.44-47.72 and the negative likelihood ratio for the 15 studies ranged from 0.00-0.51. Significant heterogeneity was found across the 15 studies so the sensitivities and specificities were summarised by a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. For malignancy, sensitivity ranged from 0.81 to 0.94 and specificity from 0.92 to 1.00. Positive likelihood ratios ranged from 10.12 to 43 and negative likelihood ratios ranged from 0.15 to 0.21, although these estimates were less reliable.

Conclusion: MRCP is a comparable diagnostic investigation in comparison to ERCP for diagnosing biliary obstruction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Summary of study selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Scatterplot of sensitivity vs. 1-specificity of MRCP test for diagnosing choledocholithiasis with Littenberg-Moses Summary ROC curve and actual data (n = 15 studies).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of estimated sensitivities of MRCP test for diagnosing choledocholithiasis (n = 15 studies).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot of estimated specificities of MRCP test for diagnosing choledocholithiasis (n = 15 studies).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. RCGP, OPCS, DHSS . Morbidity Statistics from General Practice Fourth national study 1991–1992. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, editor. Series MB5 no.3. London, HMSO; 1995.
    1. Kim JH, Kim MJ, Park SI, Chung JJ, Song SY, Kim KS, Yoo HS, Lee JT, Kim KW. MR cholangiography in symptomatic gallstones: diagnostic accuracy according to clinical risk group. Radiology. 2002;224:410–416. - PubMed
    1. Sheridan MB. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography should no longer be used as a diagnostic test: the case in favour. Digestive & Liver Disease. 2002;34:370–374. doi: 10.1016/S1590-8658(02)80132-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Coakley FV, Qayyum A. Magnetic resonancecholangiopancreatography. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2002;55:S2–12. doi: 10.1067/mge.2002.124751. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kaltenthaler E, Bravo Vergel Y, Chilcott J, Thomas S, Blakeborough A, Walters SJ, Bouchier H. A systematic review and economic evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography compared with diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Health Technology Assessment. 2004;8:1–102. http://www.ncchta.org/ProjectData/3_project_record_published.asp?PjtId=1355 - PubMed