SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Planimetric and Volumetric Brainstem MRI Markers in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy, Multiple System Atrophy, and Corticobasal Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Neurol Int · 2023-12-19

DOI: 10.3390/neurolint16010001PMID: 38392951

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundVarious MRI markers-including midbrain and pons areas (Marea, Parea) and volumes (Mvol, Pvol), ratios (M/Parea, M/Pvol), and composite markers (magnetic resonance imaging Parkinsonism Indices 1,2; MRPI 1,2)-have been proposed as imaging markers of Richardson's syndrome (RS) and multiple system atrophy-Parkinsonism (MSA-P). A systematic review/meta-analysis of relevant studies aiming to compare the diagnostic accuracy of these imaging markers is lacking.MethodsPubmed and Scopus were searched for studies with >10 patients (RS, MSA-P or CBS) and >10 controls with data on Marea, Parea, Mvol, Pvol, M/Parea, M/Pvol, MRPI 1, and MRPI 2. Cohen's d, as a measure of effect size, was calculated for all markers in RS, MSA-P, and CBS.ResultsTwenty-five studies on RS, five studies on MSA-P, and four studies on CBS were included. Midbrain area provided the greatest effect size for differentiating RS from controls (Cohen's d = -3.10; p area and MRPI 1. MSA-P had decreased midbrain and pontine areas. Included studies exhibited high heterogeneity, whereas publication bias was low.ConclusionsMidbrain area is the optimal MRI marker for RS, and pons area is optimal for MSA-P. M/Parea and MRPIs produce smaller effect sizes for differentiating RS from controls.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.