-
JAMA Network Open Jun 2022Patients meeting the criteria for fever of unknown origin (FUO) can be evaluated with structured or nonstructured approaches, but the optimal diagnostic method is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Prospective Studies Comparing Structured vs Nonstructured Diagnostic Protocol Evaluations Among Patients With Fever of Unknown Origin: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
IMPORTANCE
Patients meeting the criteria for fever of unknown origin (FUO) can be evaluated with structured or nonstructured approaches, but the optimal diagnostic method is unresolved.
OBJECTIVE
To analyze differences in diagnostic outcomes among patients undergoing structured or nonstructured diagnostic methods applied to prospective clinical studies.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases with librarian-generated query strings for FUO, PUO, fever or pyrexia of unknown origin, clinical trial, and prospective studies identified from January 1, 1997, to March 31, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Prospective studies meeting any adult FUO definition were included. Articles were excluded if patients did not precisely fit any existing adult FUO definition or studies were not classified as prospective.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Abstracted data included years of publication and study period, country, setting (eg, university vs community hospital), defining criteria and category outcome, structured or nonstructured diagnostic protocol evaluation, sex, temperature threshold and measurement, duration of fever and hospitalization before final diagnoses, and contribution of potential diagnostic clues, biochemical and immunological serologic studies, microbiology cultures, histologic analysis, and imaging studies. Structured protocols compared with nonstructured diagnostic methods were analyzed using regression models.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Overall diagnostic yield was the primary outcome.
RESULTS
Among the 19 prospective trials with 2627 unique patients included in the analysis (range of patient ages, 10-94 years; 21.0%-55.3% female), diagnoses among FUO series varied across and within World Health Organization (WHO) geographic regions. Use of a structured diagnostic protocol was not significantly associated with higher odds of yielding a diagnosis compared with nonstructured protocols in aggregate (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.65-1.49) or between Western Europe (Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Spain) (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.49-1.86) and Eastern Europe (Turkey and Romania) (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.41-1.69). Despite the limited number of studies in some regions, analyses based on the 6 WHO geographic areas found differences in the diagnostic yield. Western European studies had the lowest percentage of achieving a diagnosis. Southeast Asia led with infections at 49.0%. Noninfectious inflammatory conditions were most prevalent in the Western Pacific region (34.0%), whereas the Eastern Mediterranean region had the highest proportion of oncologic explanations (24.0%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, diagnostic yield varied among WHO regions. Available evidence from prospective studies did not support that structured diagnostic protocols had a significantly better rate of achieving a diagnosis than nonstructured protocols. Clinicians worldwide should incorporate geographical disease prevalence in their evaluation of patients with FUO.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Clinical Protocols; Diagnostic Imaging; Europe; Female; Fever of Unknown Origin; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Prevalence; Prospective Studies; Young Adult
PubMed: 35653154
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.15000 -
JAMA Dec 2019Hip osteoarthritis (OA) is a common cause of pain and disability.
IMPORTANCE
Hip osteoarthritis (OA) is a common cause of pain and disability.
OBJECTIVE
To identify the clinical findings that are most strongly associated with hip OA.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception until November 2019.
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies (1) quantified the accuracy of clinical findings (history, physical examination, or simple tests) and (2) used plain radiographs as the reference standard for diagnosing hip OA.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Studies were assigned levels of evidence using the Rational Clinical Examination scale and assessed for risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Data were extracted using individual hips as the unit of analysis and only pooled when findings were reported in 3 or more studies.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs).
RESULTS
Six studies were included, with data from 1110 patients and 1324 hips, of which 509 (38%) showed radiographic evidence of OA. Among patients presenting to primary care physicians with hip or groin pain, the affected hip showed radiographic evidence of OA in 34% of cases. A family history of OA, personal history of knee OA, or pain on climbing stairs or walking up slopes all had LRs of 2.1 (sensitivity range, 33%-68%; specificity range, 68%-84%; broadest LR range: 95% CI, 1.1-3.8). To identify patients most likely to have OA, the most useful findings were squat causing posterior pain (sensitivity, 24%; specificity, 96%; LR, 6.1 [95% CI, 1.3-29]), groin pain on passive abduction or adduction (sensitivity, 33%; specificity, 94%; LR, 5.7 [95% CI, 1.6-20]), abductor weakness (sensitivity, 44%; specificity, 90%; LR, 4.5 [95% CI, 2.4-8.4]), and decreased passive hip adduction (sensitivity, 80%; specificity, 81%; LR, 4.2 [95% CI, 3.0-6.0]) or internal rotation (sensitivity, 66%; specificity, 79%; LR, 3.2 [95% CI, 1.7-6.0]) as measured by a goniometer or compared with the contralateral leg. The presence of normal passive hip adduction was most useful for suggesting the absence of OA (negative LR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.11-0.54]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Simple tests of hip motion and observing for pain during that motion were helpful in distinguishing patients most likely to have OA on plain radiography from those who will not. A combination of findings efficiently detects those most likely to have severe hip OA.
Topics: Diagnosis, Differential; Female; Hip Joint; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Pain; Physical Examination; Radiography; Range of Motion, Articular; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 31846019
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.19413 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2019Diagnosing acute appendicitis (appendicitis) based on clinical evaluation, blood testing, and urinalysis can be difficult. Therefore, in persons with suspected... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Diagnosing acute appendicitis (appendicitis) based on clinical evaluation, blood testing, and urinalysis can be difficult. Therefore, in persons with suspected appendicitis, abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) is often used as an add-on test following the initial evaluation to reduce remaining diagnostic uncertainty. The aim of using CT is to assist the clinician in discriminating between persons who need surgery with appendicectomy and persons who do not.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective Our primary objective was to evaluate the accuracy of CT for diagnosing appendicitis in adults with suspected appendicitis. Secondary objectives Our secondary objectives were to compare the accuracy of contrast-enhanced versus non-contrast-enhanced CT, to compare the accuracy of low-dose versus standard-dose CT, and to explore the influence of CT-scanner generation, radiologist experience, degree of clinical suspicion of appendicitis, and aspects of methodological quality on diagnostic accuracy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 16 June 2017. We also searched references lists. We did not exclude studies on the basis of language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective studies that compared results of CT versus outcomes of a reference standard in adults (> 14 years of age) with suspected appendicitis. We excluded studies recruiting only pregnant women; studies in persons with abdominal pain at any location and with no particular suspicion of appendicitis; studies in which all participants had undergone ultrasonography (US) before CT and the decision to perform CT depended on the US outcome; studies using a case-control design; studies with fewer than 10 participants; and studies that did not report the numbers of true-positives, false-positives, false-negatives, and true-negatives. Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently collected the data from each study and evaluated methodological quality according to the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised (QUADAS-2) tool. We used the bivariate random-effects model to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 64 studies including 71 separate study populations with a total of 10,280 participants (4583 with and 5697 without acute appendicitis). Estimates of sensitivity ranged from 0.72 to 1.0 and estimates of specificity ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 across the 71 study populations. Summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 0.96), and summary specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.95). At the median prevalence of appendicitis (0.43), the probability of having appendicitis following a positive CT result was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.94), and the probability of having appendicitis following a negative CT result was 0.04 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05). In subgroup analyses according to contrast enhancement, summary sensitivity was higher for CT with intravenous contrast (0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.98), CT with rectal contrast (0.97, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.99), and CT with intravenous and oral contrast enhancement (0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.98) than for unenhanced CT (0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.93). Summary sensitivity of CT with oral contrast enhancement (0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94) and unenhanced CT was similar. Results show practically no differences in summary specificity, which varied from 0.93 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.95) to 0.95 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98) between subgroups. Summary sensitivity for low-dose CT (0.94, 95% 0.90 to 0.97) was similar to summary sensitivity for standard-dose or unspecified-dose CT (0.95, 95% 0.93 to 0.96); summary specificity did not differ between low-dose and standard-dose or unspecified-dose CT. No studies had high methodological quality as evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool. Major methodological problems were poor reference standards and partial verification primarily due to inadequate and incomplete follow-up in persons who did not have surgery.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The sensitivity and specificity of CT for diagnosing appendicitis in adults are high. Unenhanced standard-dose CT appears to have lower sensitivity than standard-dose CT with intravenous, rectal, or oral and intravenous contrast enhancement. Use of different types of contrast enhancement or no enhancement does not appear to affect specificity. Differences in sensitivity and specificity between low-dose and standard-dose CT appear to be negligible. The results of this review should be interpreted with caution for two reasons. First, these results are based on studies of low methodological quality. Second, the comparisons between types of contrast enhancement and radiation dose may be unreliable because they are based on indirect comparisons that may be confounded by other factors.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Appendicitis; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 31743429
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009977.pub2 -
Health Technology Assessment... Oct 2019Osteomyelitis is an infection of the bone. Medical imaging tests, such as radiography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), single-photon emission computed...
BACKGROUND
Osteomyelitis is an infection of the bone. Medical imaging tests, such as radiography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET), are often used to diagnose osteomyelitis.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the evidence on the diagnostic accuracy, inter-rater reliability and implementation of imaging tests to diagnose osteomyelitis.
DATA SOURCES
We conducted a systematic review of imaging tests to diagnose osteomyelitis. We searched MEDLINE and other databases from inception to July 2018.
REVIEW METHODS
Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2 [quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (version 2)]. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using bivariate regression models. Imaging tests were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the location and nature of the suspected osteomyelitis. Studies of children, inter-rater reliability and implementation outcomes were synthesised narratively.
RESULTS
Eighty-one studies were included (diagnostic accuracy: 77 studies; inter-rater reliability: 11 studies; implementation: one study; some studies were included in two reviews). One-quarter of diagnostic accuracy studies were rated as being at a high risk of bias. In adults, MRI had high diagnostic accuracy [95.6% sensitivity, 95% confidence interval (CI) 92.4% to 97.5%; 80.7% specificity, 95% CI 70.8% to 87.8%]. PET also had high accuracy (85.1% sensitivity, 95% CI 71.5% to 92.9%; 92.8% specificity, 95% CI 83.0% to 97.1%), as did SPECT (95.1% sensitivity, 95% CI 87.8% to 98.1%; 82.0% specificity, 95% CI 61.5% to 92.8%). There was similar diagnostic performance with MRI, PET and SPECT. Scintigraphy (83.6% sensitivity, 95% CI 71.8% to 91.1%; 70.6% specificity, 57.7% to 80.8%), computed tomography (69.7% sensitivity, 95% CI 40.1% to 88.7%; 90.2% specificity, 95% CI 57.6% to 98.4%) and radiography (70.4% sensitivity, 95% CI 61.6% to 77.8%; 81.5% specificity, 95% CI 69.6% to 89.5%) all had generally inferior diagnostic accuracy. Technetium-99m hexamethylpropyleneamine oxime white blood cell scintigraphy (87.3% sensitivity, 95% CI 75.1% to 94.0%; 94.7% specificity, 95% CI 84.9% to 98.3%) had higher diagnostic accuracy, similar to that of PET or MRI. There was no evidence that diagnostic accuracy varied by scan location or cause of osteomyelitis, although data on many scan locations were limited. Diagnostic accuracy in diabetic foot patients was similar to the overall results. Only three studies in children were identified; results were too limited to draw any conclusions. Eleven studies evaluated inter-rater reliability. MRI had acceptable inter-rater reliability. We found only one study on test implementation and no evidence on patient preferences or cost-effectiveness of imaging tests for osteomyelitis.
LIMITATIONS
Most studies included < 50 participants and were poorly reported. There was limited evidence for children, ultrasonography and on clinical factors other than diagnostic accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS
Osteomyelitis is reliably diagnosed by MRI, PET and SPECT. No clear reason to prefer one test over the other in terms of diagnostic accuracy was identified. The wider availability of MRI machines, and the fact that MRI does not expose patients to harmful ionising radiation, may mean that MRI is preferable in most cases. Diagnostic accuracy does not appear to vary with the potential cause of osteomyelitis or with the body part scanned. Considerable uncertainty remains over the diagnostic accuracy of imaging tests in children. Studies of diagnostic accuracy in children, particularly using MRI and ultrasound, are needed.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068511.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 23, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Child, Preschool; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Humans; Infant; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Middle Aged; Osteomyelitis; Positron-Emission Tomography; Reproducibility of Results; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Ultrasonography; Young Adult
PubMed: 31670644
DOI: 10.3310/hta23610 -
International Journal of Molecular... Mar 2023Despite laparoscopy being a standardized option to diagnose pelvic endometriotic implants, non-invasive biomarkers are necessary to avoid the discomfort of invasive... (Review)
Review
Despite laparoscopy being a standardized option to diagnose pelvic endometriotic implants, non-invasive biomarkers are necessary to avoid the discomfort of invasive procedures. Recent evidence suggests a potential role of microRNAs (miRNAs) as feasible biomarkers for the early diagnosis of endometriosis. Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, we systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct in January 2023. We provided no restriction on the country and year of publication, and considered English published articles. We selected studies including patients with endometriosis and describing miRNA regulation in the context of endometriosis. Overall, 45 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and 2045 patients with endometriosis and 1587 controls were screened. Patients were analyzed concerning miRNAs expression and sources, stage of disease, and symptoms, and compared to controls. Among DEMs, the ones with the widest delta between endometriosis patients and controls-Relative Expression ≥ 4 Log2(ratio)-were miR-145, miR-191, miR-195, miR-21-5p, miR-106b-5p, miR-195-5p, miR-451a, miR-200c, miR-20a-5p, and miR-15a-5p. Although the epigenetic regulation is partially unclear, miRNAs are valid biomarkers to diagnose endometriotic lesions in symptomatic and non-symptomatic women. MiRNAs modulation should be clarified, especially during therapies or relapse, to plan targeted management protocols.
Topics: Humans; Female; Endometriosis; Epigenesis, Genetic; MicroRNAs; Biomarkers; Liquid Biopsy
PubMed: 37047088
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24076116 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... Dec 2023To assess the efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI) models in diagnosing and prognosticating acute appendicitis (AA) in adult patients compared to traditional... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To assess the efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI) models in diagnosing and prognosticating acute appendicitis (AA) in adult patients compared to traditional methods. AA is a common cause of emergency department visits and abdominal surgeries. It is typically diagnosed through clinical assessments, laboratory tests, and imaging studies. However, traditional diagnostic methods can be time-consuming and inaccurate. Machine learning models have shown promise in improving diagnostic accuracy and predicting outcomes.
MAIN BODY
A systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Studies were evaluated for risk of bias using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Data points extracted included model type, input features, validation strategies, and key performance metrics.
RESULTS
In total, 29 studies were analyzed, out of which 21 focused on diagnosis, seven on prognosis, and one on both. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) were the most commonly employed algorithm for diagnosis. Both ANN and logistic regression were also widely used for categorizing types of AA. ANNs showed high performance in most cases, with accuracy rates often exceeding 80% and AUC values peaking at 0.985. The models also demonstrated promising results in predicting postoperative outcomes such as sepsis risk and ICU admission. Risk of bias was identified in a majority of studies, with selection bias and lack of internal validation being the most common issues.
CONCLUSION
AI algorithms demonstrate significant promise in diagnosing and prognosticating AA, often surpassing traditional methods and clinical scores such as the Alvarado scoring system in terms of speed and accuracy.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Artificial Intelligence; Appendicitis; Prognosis; Algorithms; Machine Learning; Acute Disease
PubMed: 38114983
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-023-00527-2 -
Journal of Biomedical Informatics Nov 2023Adequate methods to promptly translate digital health innovations for improved patient care are essential. Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Adequate methods to promptly translate digital health innovations for improved patient care are essential. Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) have been sources of digital innovation and hold the promise to revolutionize the way we treat, manage and diagnose patients. Understanding the benefits but also the potential adverse effects of digital health innovations, particularly when these are made available or applied on healthier segments of the population is essential. One of such adverse effects is overdiagnosis.
OBJECTIVE
to comprehensively analyze quantification strategies and data-driven definitions for overdiagnosis reported in the literature.
METHODS
we conducted a scoping systematic review of manuscripts describing quantitative methods to estimate the proportion of overdiagnosed patients.
RESULTS
we identified 46 studies that met our inclusion criteria. They covered a variety of clinical conditions, primarily breast and prostate cancer. Methods to quantify overdiagnosis included both prospective and retrospective methods including randomized clinical trials, and simulations.
CONCLUSION
a variety of methods to quantify overdiagnosis have been published, producing widely diverging results. A standard method to quantify overdiagnosis is needed to allow its mitigation during the rapidly increasing development of new digital diagnostic tools.
Topics: Male; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Artificial Intelligence; Overdiagnosis; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37769829
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2023.104506 -
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons... Feb 2020Gynaecological structures such as the ovaries, fallopian tubes, ligaments and uterus are rarely encountered inside a hernial sac. The prevalence of groin hernias...
INTRODUCTION
Gynaecological structures such as the ovaries, fallopian tubes, ligaments and uterus are rarely encountered inside a hernial sac. The prevalence of groin hernias containing parts of female genitalia remains unknown. The aim of this review was to summarise the existing evidence on inguinal hernias containing ovaries with or without the other female adnexa.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted for literature published up to February 2018 using the MEDLINE, Scopus and Google Scholar™ databases along with the references of the full-text articles retrieved. Papers on observational studies and case reports concerning women who were diagnosed with an ovarian inguinal hernia (pre or intraoperatively) were considered eligible for inclusion in the review.
RESULTS
Fifteen papers (13 case reports, 2 case series) comprising seventeen patients (mean age 47.9 years) were evaluated. A left-sided hernia was noted in 13 cases (77%) whereas 4 patients had a right-sided hernia. Eight patients underwent preoperative imaging with computed tomography, ultrasonography or both. This was diagnostic in five cases. In 11 patients, hernia contents were repositioned, 2 had a salpingo-oophorectomy and 2 an oophorectomy. Eight patients underwent hernia repair with mesh placement while three had a herniorrhaphy.
CONCLUSIONS
Ovarian inguinal hernias should be considered among the differential diagnoses of a groin mass or swelling. In women of reproductive age, repair of the hernia with the intent to preserve fertility is of critical importance.
Topics: Female; Hernia, Inguinal; Herniorrhaphy; Humans; Inguinal Canal; Ovarian Diseases; Ovariectomy; Ovary; Prevalence; Salpingo-oophorectomy; Surgical Mesh; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 31696731
DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2019.0137 -
American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy May 2022Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhea results from abnormal communications between the subarachnoid and sinonasal spaces. Accurate preoperative diagnosis and localization...
BACKGROUND
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhea results from abnormal communications between the subarachnoid and sinonasal spaces. Accurate preoperative diagnosis and localization are vital for positive clinical outcomes. However, the diagnosis and localization of CSF rhinorrhea remain suboptimal due to a lack of accurate understanding of test characteristics.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of various tests and imaging modalities for diagnosing and localizing CSF rhinorrhea.
METHODS
A systematic review of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
RESULTS
Our search identified 4039 articles-53 cohort studies and 24 case series describing 1622 patients were included. The studies were heterogeneous and had a wide range of sensitivities and specificities. Many specificities were incalculable due to a lack of true negative and false positive results, thus precluding a meta-analysis. Median sensitivities and specificities were calculated for cohort studies of the following investigations: high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) 0.93/0.50 (sensitivity/specificity), magnetic resonance cisternography (MRC) 0.94/0.77, computed tomography cisternography (CTC) 0.95/1.00, radionuclide cisternography (RNC) 0.90/0.50, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cisternography (CEMRC) 0.99/1.00, endoscopy 0.58/1.00, topical intranasal fluorescein (TIF) 1.00/incalculable, intrathecal fluorescein (ITF) 0.96/1.00. Case series were reviewed separately. Etiology and site-specific data were also analyzed.
CONCLUSION
MR cisternography is more accurate than high-resolution CT at diagnosing and localizing CSF rhinorrhea. CT cisternography, contrast-enhanced MR cisternography, and radionuclide cisternography have good diagnostic characteristics but are invasive. Intrathecal fluorescein shows promising data but has not been widely adopted for purely diagnostic use. Office endoscopy has limited data but does not sufficiently diagnose CSF rhinorrhea independently. These findings confirm with current guidelines and evidence.
Topics: Cerebrospinal Fluid Rhinorrhea; Fluorescein; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 34846218
DOI: 10.1177/19458924211060918 -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 2024Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a heterogeneous neurodevelopmental disorder, with main manifestations related to communication, social interaction, and behavioral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a heterogeneous neurodevelopmental disorder, with main manifestations related to communication, social interaction, and behavioral patterns. The slight dynamics of change in the child over time require that the onset of clinical manifestations presented by the child be more valued, with the aim of stabilizing the condition. Faced with a variety of methods for diagnosing ASD, the question arises as to which method should be used. This systematic review aims to recommend the best tools to perform screening and diagnosis.
METHODOLOGY
This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. The databases MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane), and Lilacs were accessed, and gray and manual searches were performed. The search strategy was created with terms referring to autism and the diagnosis/broad filter. The studies were qualitatively evaluated and quantitatively. Statistical analysis was performed using Meta-diSc-2.0 software, the confidence interval was 95 %.
RESULTS
The M-CHAT-R/F tool demonstrated a sensitivity of 78 % (95 % CI 0.57‒0.91) and specificity of 0.98 (95 % CI 0.88-1.00). The diagnostic tools demonstrated sensitivity and specificity respectively of: ADOS, sensitivity of 87 % (95 % CI 0.79‒0.92) and specificity 75 % (95 % CI 0.73‒0.78); ADI-R demonstrated test sensitivity of 77 % (95 % CI 0.56‒0.90) and specificity 68 % (95 % CI 0.52‒0.81), CARS test sensitivity was 89 % (95 % CI 0.78‒0.95) and specificity 79 % (95 % CI 0.65‒0.88).
CONCLUSION
It is mandatory to apply a screening test, the most recommended being the M-CHAT-R/F. For diagnosis CARS and ADOS are the most recommended tools.
Topics: Child; Humans; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Sensitivity and Specificity; Mass Screening; Communication; Research Design
PubMed: 38484581
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinsp.2023.100323