-
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Aug 2022Breast cancer screening guidelines could provide valuable tools for clinical decision making by reviewing the available evidence and providing recommendations. Little... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Breast cancer screening guidelines could provide valuable tools for clinical decision making by reviewing the available evidence and providing recommendations. Little information is known about how many countries have issued breast cancer screening guidelines and the differences among existing guidelines. We systematically reviewed current guidelines and summarized corresponding recommendations, to provide references for good clinical practice in different countries.
METHODS
Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to March 27th, 2021 were conducted and supplemented by reviewing the guideline development organizations. The quality of screening guidelines was assessed from six domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ (AGREE Ⅱ) instrument by two appraisers. The basic information and recommendations of the issued guidelines were extracted and summarized.
RESULTS
A total of 23 guidelines issued between 2010 and 2021 in 11 countries or regions were identified for further review. The content and quality varied across the guidelines. The average AGREE Ⅱ scores of the guidelines ranged from 33.3% to 87.5%. The highest domain score was "clarity of presentation" while the domain with the lowest score was "applicability". For average-risk women, most of the guidelines recommended mammographic screening for those aged 40-74 years, specifically, those aged 50-69 years were regarded as the optimal age group for screening. Nine of 23 guidelines recommended against an upper age limit for breast cancer screening. Mammography (MAM) was recommended as the primary screening modality for average-risk women by all included guidelines. Most guidelines suggested annual or biennial mammographic screening. Risk factors of breast cancer identified in the guidelines mainly fell within five categories which could be broadly summarized as the personal history of pre-cancerous lesions and/or breast cancer; the family history of breast cancer; the known genetic predisposition of breast cancer; the history of mantle or chest radiation therapy; and dense breasts. For women at higher risk, there was a consensus among most guidelines that annual MAM or annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be given, and the screening should begin earlier than the average-risk group.
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of 23 included international guidelines were issued by developed countries which contained roughly the same but not identical recommendations on breast cancer screening age, methods, and intervals. Most guidelines recommended annual or biennial mammographic screening between 40 and 74 years for average-risk populations and annual MAM or annual MRI starting from a younger age for high-risk populations. Current guidelines varied in quality and increased efforts are needed to improve the methodological quality of guidance documents. Due to lacking clinical practice guidelines tailored to different economic levels, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) should apply and implement the evidence-based guidelines with higher AGREE Ⅱ scores considering local adaption.
Topics: Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening
PubMed: 35636342
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.04.003 -
The American Journal of Psychiatry Jul 2021The authors sought to identify scalable evidence-based suicide prevention strategies.
OBJECTIVE
The authors sought to identify scalable evidence-based suicide prevention strategies.
METHODS
A search of PubMed and Google Scholar identified 20,234 articles published between September 2005 and December 2019, of which 97 were randomized controlled trials with suicidal behavior or ideation as primary outcomes or epidemiological studies of limiting access to lethal means, using educational approaches, and the impact of antidepressant treatment.
RESULTS
Training primary care physicians in depression recognition and treatment prevents suicide. Educating youths on depression and suicidal behavior, as well as active outreach to psychiatric patients after discharge or a suicidal crisis, prevents suicidal behavior. Meta-analyses find that antidepressants prevent suicide attempts, but individual randomized controlled trials appear to be underpowered. Ketamine reduces suicidal ideation in hours but is untested for suicidal behavior prevention. Cognitive-behavioral therapy and dialectical behavior therapy prevent suicidal behavior. Active screening for suicidal ideation or behavior is not proven to be better than just screening for depression. Education of gatekeepers about youth suicidal behavior lacks effectiveness. No randomized trials have been reported for gatekeeper training for prevention of adult suicidal behavior. Algorithm-driven electronic health record screening, Internet-based screening, and smartphone passive monitoring to identify high-risk patients are understudied. Means restriction, including of firearms, prevents suicide but is sporadically employed in the United States, even though firearms are used in half of all U.S. suicides.
CONCLUSIONS
Training general practitioners warrants wider implementation and testing in other nonpsychiatrist physician settings. Active follow-up of patients after discharge or a suicide-related crisis should be routine, and restricting firearm access by at-risk individuals warrants wider use. Combination approaches in health care systems show promise in reducing suicide in several countries, but evaluating the benefit attributable to each component is essential. Further suicide rate reduction requires evaluating newer approaches, such as electronic health record-derived algorithms, Internet-based screening methods, ketamine's potential benefit for preventing attempts, and passive monitoring of acute suicide risk change.
Topics: Evidence-Based Practice; Humans; Mass Screening; Suicide Prevention
PubMed: 33596680
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.20060864 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Diabetes mellitus, a metabolic disorder characterised by hyperglycaemia and associated with a heavy burden of microvascular and macrovascular complications, frequently...
BACKGROUND
Diabetes mellitus, a metabolic disorder characterised by hyperglycaemia and associated with a heavy burden of microvascular and macrovascular complications, frequently remains undiagnosed. Screening of apparently healthy individuals may lead to early detection and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and may prevent or delay the development of related complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, the WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception. The date of the last search was May 2019 for all databases. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials involving adults and children without known diabetes mellitus, conducted over at least three months, that assessed the effect of diabetes screening (mass, targeted, or opportunistic) compared to no diabetes screening.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for potential relevance and reviewed the full-texts of potentially relevant studies, extracted data, and carried out 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We screened 4651 titles and abstracts identified by the search and assessed 92 full-texts/records for inclusion. We included one cluster-randomised trial, the ADDITION-Cambridge study, which involved 20,184 participants from 33 general practices in Eastern England and assessed the effects of inviting versus not inviting high-risk individuals to screening for diabetes. The diabetes risk score was used to identify high-risk individuals; it comprised variables relating to age, sex, body mass index, and the use of prescribed steroid and anti-hypertensive medication. Twenty-seven practices were randomised to the screening group (11,737 participants actually attending screening) and 5 practices to the no-screening group (4137 participants). In both groups, 36% of participants were women; the average age of participants was 58.2 years in the screening group and 57.9 years in the no-screening group. Almost half of participants in both groups were on antihypertensive medication. The findings from the first phase of this study indicate that screening compared to no screening for type 2 diabetes did not show a clear difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.25, low-certainty evidence). Screening compared to no screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus showed an HR of 1.26, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.12 (low-certainty evidence) for diabetes-related mortality (based on whether diabetes was reported as a cause of death on the death certificate). Diabetes-related morbidity and health-related quality of life were only reported in a subsample and did not show a substantial difference between the screening intervention and control. The included study did not report on adverse events, incidence of type 2 diabetes, glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and socioeconomic effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain about the effects of screening for type 2 diabetes on all-cause mortality and diabetes-related mortality. Evidence was available from one study only. We are therefore unable to draw any firm conclusions relating to the health outcomes of early type 2 diabetes mellitus screening. Furthermore, the included study did not assess all of the outcomes prespecified in the review (diabetes-related morbidity, incidence of type 2 diabetes, health-related quality of life, adverse events, socioeconomic effects).
Topics: Cause of Death; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged
PubMed: 32470201
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005266.pub2 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Jul 2021Cancer is a leading cause of death, and although screening can reduce cancer morbidity and mortality, participation in screening remains suboptimal. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cancer is a leading cause of death, and although screening can reduce cancer morbidity and mortality, participation in screening remains suboptimal.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of social media and mobile health (mHealth) interventions for cancer screening.
METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies of social media and mHealth interventions promoting cancer screening (breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers) in adults in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Communication & Mass Media Complete from January 1, 2000, to July 17, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and completed the risk of bias assessments. We pooled odds ratios for screening participation using the Mantel-Haenszel method in a random-effects model.
RESULTS
We screened 18,008 records identifying 39 studies (35 mHealth and 4 social media). The types of interventions included peer support (n=1), education or awareness (n=6), reminders (n=13), or mixed (n=19). The overall pooled odds ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.31-1.70), with similar effect sizes across cancer types.
CONCLUSIONS
Screening programs should consider mHealth interventions because of their promising role in promoting cancer screening participation. Given the limited number of studies identified, further research is needed for social media interventions.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019139615; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=139615.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035411.
Topics: Adult; Biomedical Technology; Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Neoplasms; Social Media; Technology; Telemedicine
PubMed: 34328423
DOI: 10.2196/26759 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Mar 2020Eating disorders affect upwards of 30 million people worldwide and often go undertreated and underdiagnosed. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Eating disorders affect upwards of 30 million people worldwide and often go undertreated and underdiagnosed. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Sick, Control, One, Fat and Food (SCOFF) questionnaire for DSM-5 eating disorders in the general population.
METHOD
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) were followed. A PubMed search was conducted among peer-reviewed articles. Information regarding validation of the SCOFF was required for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool.
RESULTS
The final analysis included 25 studies. The validity of the SCOFF was high across samples with a pooled sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78-0.91) and specificity of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.88). Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the impact of methodology, study quality, and clinical characteristics on diagnostic accuracy. Studies with the highest sensitivity tended to be case-control studies of young women with anorexia nervosa (AN) and bulimia nervosa (BN). Studies which included more men, included those diagnosed with binge eating disorder, and recruited from large community samples tended to have lower sensitivity. Few studies reported on BMI and race/ethnicity; thus, subgroups for these factors could not be examined. No studies used reference standards which assessed all DSM-5 eating disorders.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis of 25 validation studies demonstrates that the SCOFF is a simple and useful screening tool for young women at risk for AN and BN. However, there is not enough evidence to support utilizing the SCOFF for screening for the range of DSM-5 eating disorders in primary care and community-based settings. Further examination of the validity of the SCOFF or development of a new screening tool, or multiple tools, to screen for the range of DSM-5 eating disorders heterogenous populations is warranted.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This study is registered online with PROSPERO (CRD42018089906).
Topics: Anorexia Nervosa; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Feeding and Eating Disorders; Female; Humans; Male; Mass Screening; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 31705473
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-05478-6 -
Public Health Jun 2021The objective of this study is to estimate the pooled uptake of cervical cancer screening and identify its predictors in Sub-Saharan Africa. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study is to estimate the pooled uptake of cervical cancer screening and identify its predictors in Sub-Saharan Africa.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, African Journals OnLine, Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases from January 2000 to 2019. All observational studies published in the English language that reported cervical cancer uptake and/or predictors in Sub-Saharan Africa were initially screened. We assessed methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. An inverse variance-weighted random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled uptake and odds ratio (OR) of predictors with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The I test statistic was used to check between-study heterogeneity, and the Egger's regression statistical test was used to check publication bias.
RESULTS
We initially screened 3537 citations and subsequently 29 studies were selected for this review, which included a total of 36,374 women. The uptake of cervical cancer screening in Sub-Saharan Africa was 12.87% (95% CI: 10.20, 15.54; I = 98.5%). A meta-analysis of seven studies showed that knowledge about cervical cancer increased screening uptake by nearly five times (OR: 4.81; 95% CI: 3.06, 7.54). Other predictors of cervical screening uptake include educational level, age, Human Immune deficiency Virus (HIV) status, contraceptive use, perceived susceptibility and awareness about screening locations.
CONCLUSIONS
Cervical screening uptake is low in Sub-Saharan Africa as a result of several factors. Health outreach and promotion programmes to target these identified predictors are required.
Topics: Africa South of the Sahara; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; HIV Infections; Humans; Mass Screening; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 34082174
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2021.04.014 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Stroke can affect people's ability to swallow, resulting in passage of some food and drink into the airway. This can cause choking, chest infection, malnutrition and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Stroke can affect people's ability to swallow, resulting in passage of some food and drink into the airway. This can cause choking, chest infection, malnutrition and dehydration, reduced rehabilitation, increased risk of anxiety and depression, longer hospital stay, increased likelihood of discharge to a care home, and increased risk of death. Early identification and management of disordered swallowing reduces risk of these difficulties.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective • To determine the diagnostic accuracy and the sensitivity and specificity of bedside screening tests for detecting risk of aspiration associated with dysphagia in people with acute stroke Secondary objectives • To assess the influence of the following sources of heterogeneity on the diagnostic accuracy of bedside screening tools for dysphagia - Patient demographics (e.g. age, gender) - Time post stroke that the study was conducted (from admission to 48 hours) to ensure only hyperacute and acute stroke swallow screening tools are identified - Definition of dysphagia used by the study - Level of training of nursing staff (both grade and training in the screening tool) - Low-quality studies identified from the methodological quality checklist - Type and threshold of index test - Type of reference test SEARCH METHODS: In June 2017 and December 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; the reference lists of included studies; and grey literature sources. We contacted experts in the field to identify any ongoing studies and those potentially missed by the search strategy.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that were single-gate or two-gate studies comparing a bedside screening tool administered by nurses or other healthcare professionals (HCPs) with expert or instrumental assessment for detection of aspiration associated with dysphagia in adults with acute stroke admitted to hospital.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened each study using the eligibility criteria and then extracted data, including the sensitivity and specificity of each index test against the reference test. A third review author was available at each stage to settle disagreements. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2) tool. We identified insufficient studies for each index test, so we performed no meta-analysis. Diagnostic accuracy data were presented as sensitivities and specificities for the index tests.
MAIN RESULTS
Overall, we included 25 studies in the review, four of which we included as narratives (with no accuracy statistics reported). The included studies involved 3953 participants and 37 screening tests. Of these, 24 screening tests used water only, six used water and other consistencies, and seven used other methods. For index tests using water only, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 46% to 100% and from 43% to 100%, respectively; for those using water and other consistencies, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 75% to 100% and from 69% to 90%, respectively; and for those using other methods, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 29% to 100% and from 39% to 86%, respectively. Twenty screening tests used expert assessment or the Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability (MASA) as the reference, six used fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), and 11 used videofluoroscopy (VF). Fifteen screening tools had an outcome of aspiration risk, 20 screening tools had an outcome of dysphagia, and two narrative papers did not report the outcome. Twenty-one screening tests were carried out by nurses, and 16 were carried out by other HCPs (not including speech and language therapists (SLTs)). We assessed a total of six studies as low risk across all four QUADAS-2 risk of bias domains, and we rated 15 studies as low concern across all three applicability domains. No single study demonstrated 100% sensitivity and specificity with low risk of bias for all domains. The best performing combined water swallow and instrumental tool was the Bedside Aspiration test (n = 50), the best performing water plus other consistencies tool was the Gugging Swallowing Screen (GUSS; n = 30), and the best water only swallow screening tool was the Toronto Bedside Swallowing Screening Test (TOR-BSST; n = 24). All tools demonstrated combined highest sensitivity and specificity and low risk of bias for all domains. However, clinicians should be cautious in their interpretation of these findings, as these tests are based on single studies with small sample sizes, which limits the estimates of reliability of screening tests.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We were unable to identify a single swallow screening tool with high and precisely estimated sensitivity and specificity based on at least one trial with low risk of bias. However, we were able to offer recommendations for further high-quality studies that are needed to improve the accuracy and clinical utility of bedside screening tools.
Topics: Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Mass Screening; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Stroke
PubMed: 34661279
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012679.pub2 -
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition Nov 2020Malnutrition predicts poorer clinical outcomes for people with cancer. Older adults with cancer are a complex, growing population at high risk of weight-losing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Malnutrition predicts poorer clinical outcomes for people with cancer. Older adults with cancer are a complex, growing population at high risk of weight-losing conditions. A number of malnutrition screening tools exist, however the best screening tool for this group is unknown. The aim was to systematically review the published evidence regarding markers and measures of nutritional status in older adults with cancer (age ≥ 70). A systematic search was performed in Ovid Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, British Nursing Database and Cochrane CENTRAL; search terms related to malnutrition, cancer, older adults. Titles, abstracts and papers were screened and quality-appraised. Data evaluating ability of markers of nutritional status to predict patient outcomes were subjected to meta-analysis or narrative synthesis. Forty-two studies, describing 15 markers were included. Meta-analysis found decreased food intake was associated with mortality (OR 2.15 [2.03-4.20] p = < 0.00001) in univariate analysis. Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) was associated with overall survival (HR 1.89 [1.03-3.48] p = 0.04). PNI markers (albumin, total lymphocyte count) could be seen as markers of inflammation rather than nutrition. There a suggested relationship between very low body mass index (BMI) (<18 kg/m) and clinical outcomes. No tool was identified as appropriate to screen for malnutrition, as distinct from inflammatory causes of weight-loss. Risk of cancer-cachexia and sarcopenia in older adults with cancer limits the tools analysed. Measures of food intake predicted mortality and should be included in clinical enquiry. A screening tool that distinguishes between malnutrition, cachexia and sarcopenia in older adults with cancer is needed.
Topics: Aged; Cachexia; Humans; Malnutrition; Neoplasms; Nutrition Assessment; Nutritional Status
PubMed: 32366995
DOI: 10.1038/s41430-020-0629-0 -
The Indian Journal of Medical Research Jul 2021Women with gestational diabetes are at an increased risk of being diagnosed as type 2 diabetes, but the postpartum screening rate is low. To provide evidence-based data... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND &OBJECTIVES
Women with gestational diabetes are at an increased risk of being diagnosed as type 2 diabetes, but the postpartum screening rate is low. To provide evidence-based data for health providers and promote postpartum screening, this systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to access the risks of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) diagnosis after gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in different demographic and maternal subgroups.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched systematically. Unadjusted relative risks (RRs) and 95 per cent confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochrane's Q text and by calculating I values. Subgroup analyses were conducted to address the disparities of type 2 diabetes conversion after gestational diabetes in different demographic and maternal subgroups.
RESULTS
1809 publications were screened and 39 cohort studies including 2,847,596 women were selected. In these studies, 78,893 women were diagnosed as T2DM at six weeks or later after delivery. The unadjusted RRs of women diagnosed T2DM at six weeks or later after delivery ranged from 1.32 (95% CI, 0.46-3.37) to 47.25 (95% CI, 2.95-758.01) with a pooled unadjusted RR of 8.92 (95% CI, 7.84-10.14). Older women, women with a family history of diabetes, Black and non-Hispanic White women and women living in Europe and South-East Asia had a higher risk of developing T2DM after GDM.
INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSIONS
It is suggested that healthcare providers may focus on older women with GDM and women with GDM and a family history of diabetes. Black and non-Hispanic White women with GDM may receive more attention, and healthcare providers, especially those in Europe and South-East Asia, may pay more attention to preventive measures for postpartum T2DM.
Topics: Aged; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetes, Gestational; Female; Humans; Mass Screening; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Risk
PubMed: 34782531
DOI: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_852_18 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Jaundice is a very common condition in newborns, affecting up to 60% of term newborns and 80% of preterm newborns in the first week of life. Jaundice is caused by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Jaundice is a very common condition in newborns, affecting up to 60% of term newborns and 80% of preterm newborns in the first week of life. Jaundice is caused by increased bilirubin in the blood from the breakdown of red blood cells. The gold standard for measuring bilirubin levels is obtaining a blood sample and processing it in a laboratory. However, noninvasive transcutaneous bilirubin (TcB) measurement devices are widely available and used in many settings to estimate total serum bilirubin (TSB) levels.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of transcutaneous bilirubin measurement for detecting hyperbilirubinaemia in newborns.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and trial registries up to 18 August 2022. We also checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews for other potentially eligible studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included cross-sectional and prospective cohort studies that evaluated the accuracy of any TcB device compared to TSB measurement in term or preterm newborn infants (0 to 28 days postnatal age). All included studies provided sufficient data and information to create a 2 × 2 table for the calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy, including sensitivities and specificities. We excluded studies that only reported correlation coefficients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied the eligibility criteria to all citations from the search and extracted data from the included studies using a standard data extraction form. We summarised the available results narratively and, where possible, we combined study data in a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 studies, involving 5058 participants. All studies had low risk of bias as measured by the QUADAS 2 tool. The studies were conducted in different countries and settings, included newborns of different gestational and postnatal ages, compared various TcB devices (including the JM 101, JM 102, JM 103, BiliChek, Bilitest and JH20-1C) and used different cutoff values for a positive result. In most studies, the TcB measurement was taken from the forehead, sternum, or both. The sensitivity of various TcB cutoff values to detect significant hyperbilirubinaemia ranged from 74% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 18% to 89%.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The high sensitivity of TcB to detect hyperbilirubinaemia suggests that TcB devices are reliable screening tests for ruling out hyperbilirubinaemia in newborn infants. Positive test results would require confirmation through serum bilirubin measurement.
Topics: Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Bilirubin; Cross-Sectional Studies; Hyperbilirubinemia; Jaundice, Neonatal; Neonatal Screening; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 37158489
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012660.pub2