Abstract
Background The most common assessment modalities to determine the level of injury following a traumatic brain injury (TBI) includes computerized tomography (CT) scans and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Evidence is mixed as to whether single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is specific and accurate in identifying TBI.
Objectives This study systematically assessed recent evidence of the clinical utility of SPECT in the diagnosis of TBI and examined the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT in TBI and its performance in comparison to other imaging modalities (e.g., CT and MRI).
Methods PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were systematically searched for published articles from December 2012 to July 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published in English that used SPECT to evaluate patients with all severity of TBIs were eligible for inclusion. Titles and abstracts were screened, and 111 selected full-text articles were independently screened based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria (guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; PRISMA) and assessed for quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
Results Fourteen eligible studies, all observational, reporting location of lesions on brain SPECT were included, reporting data from 21632 participants of which 20,746 participants were from one study; the remaining 886 participants were from the remaining13 studies. The heterogeneity of the data precludes a meta-analysis. There was no consensus among experts from the thirteen smaller studies; however, the largest study indicated that the specificity of visual readings was 54%. In particular, abnormalities and brain perfusions may lead to false positives. Quantitative analysis theoretically increases the reliability of findings for brain SPECT, but error rates are unknown and not published.
Conclusion There is a lack of evidence to support the clinical utility of brain SPECT for the diagnosis and treatment of TBI.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#myprospero
Funding Statement
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Footnotes
Registration: National Institute for Health Research, CRD42021276772
Conflict of Interest: None
Funding: None
Data Availability
N/A
