Table 4 Results for Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the diagnosis of osteomyelitis with 18F-FDG PET(/CT or /MRI) and MRI of the current study compared to results from literature
From: Diagnostic value of hybrid FDG-PET/MR imaging of chronic osteomyelitis
| Â | Modality | Cases | Year | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | Accuracy (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Goebel | 18F-FDG PET | 50 | 2007 | 92% (78–98%) | 69% (39–91%) | 86% (73–94%) |
Hartmann | 18F-FDG PET/CT | 33 | 2006 | 94% (73–100%) | 87% (60–98%) | 91% (76–98%) |
Wenter | 18F-FDG PET | 55 | 2016 | 86% (67–96%) | 59% (39–78%) | 73% (59–84%) |
Wenter | 18F-FDG PET/CT | 94 | 2016 | 90% (77–97%) | 71% (57–83%) | 80% (70–87%) |
Demirev | 18F-FDG PET | 27 | 2014 | 82% (57–96%) | 90% (56–100%) | 85% (66–96%) |
Hulsen | 18F-FDG PET/MRI | 36 | 2021 | 78% (56–93%) | 100% (75–100%) | 86% (71–95%) |
Demirev | MRI | 27 | 2014 | 88% (64–99%) | 70% (35–93%) | 81% (62–94%) |
Goebel | MRI | 18 | 2007 | 82% (48–98%) | 43% (10–82%) | 67% (41–87%) |