-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Specific kinds of beds, overlays and mattresses are widely used with the aim of preventing and treating pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and on increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To assess the relative effects of different types of beds, overlays and mattresses for reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To cumulatively rank the different treatment options of beds, overlays and mattresses in order of their effectiveness in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment.
METHODS
In July 2020, we searched the Cochrane Library. Cochrane Reviews reporting the effectiveness of beds, mattresses or overlays for preventing or treating pressure ulcers were eligible for inclusion in this overview. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBIS tool. We summarised the reported evidence in an overview of reviews. Where possible, we included the randomised controlled trials from each included review in network meta-analyses. We assessed the relative effectiveness of beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing or treating pressure ulcers and their probabilities of being, comparably, the most effective treatment. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We include six Cochrane Reviews in this overview of reviews, all at low or unclear risk of bias. Pressure ulcer prevention: four reviews (of 68 studies with 18,174 participants) report direct evidence for 27 pairwise comparisons between 12 types of support surface on the following outcomes: pressure ulcer incidence, time to pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Pressure ulcer incidence: our overview includes direct evidence for 27 comparisons that mostly (19/27) have very low-certainty evidence concerning reduction of pressure ulcer risk. We included 40 studies (12,517 participants; 1298 participants with new ulcers) in a network meta-analysis involving 13 types of intervention. Data informing the network are sparse and this, together with the high risk of bias in most studies informing the network, means most network contrasts (64/78) yield evidence of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces (e.g. static air overlays) (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.75), alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (e.g. alternating pressure air mattresses, large-celled ripple mattresses) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93), and reactive gel surfaces (e.g. gel pads used on operating tables) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.01) may reduce pressure ulcer incidence. The ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness is also of very low certainty for all interventions. It is unclear which treatment is best for preventing ulceration. (2) Time to pressure ulcer incidence: four reviews had direct evidence on this outcome for seven comparisons. We included 10 studies (7211 participants; 699 participants with new ulcers) evaluating six interventions in a network meta-analysis. Again, data from most network contrasts (13/15) are of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces may reduce the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.05). The ranking of all support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers in terms of time to healing is uncertain. (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for three comparisons. For preventing pressure ulcers, alternating pressure air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (moderate-certainty evidence). Pressure ulcer treatment: two reviews (of 12 studies with 972 participants) report direct evidence for five comparisons on: complete pressure ulcer healing, time to complete pressure ulcer healing, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Complete pressure ulcer healing: our overview includes direct evidence for five comparisons. There is uncertainty about the relative effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on ulcer healing. The corresponding network meta-analysis (with four studies, 397 participants) had only three direct contrasts and a total of six network contrasts. Again, most network contrasts (5/6) have very low-certainty evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that more people with pressure ulcers may heal completely using reactive air surfaces than using foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80). We are uncertain which surfaces have the highest probability of being the most effective (all very low-certainty evidence). (2) Time to complete pressure ulcer healing: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have healed pressure ulcers compared with those using foam surfaces in long-term care settings (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use in long-term care settings (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and may increase complete ulcer healing. Compared with foam surfaces, alternating pressure air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and are probably more cost-effective in preventing pressure ulcers. Compared with foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk, particularly for people in operating rooms and long-term care settings. There are uncertainties for the relative effectiveness of other support surfaces for preventing and treating pressure ulcers, and their efficacy ranking. More high-quality research is required; for example, for the comparison of reactive air surfaces with alternating pressure air surfaces. Future studies should consider time-to-event outcomes and be designed to minimise any risk of bias.
Topics: Bedding and Linens; Beds; Humans; Incidence; Network Meta-Analysis; Pressure Ulcer; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34398473
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013761.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021Dementia is a progressive global cognitive impairment syndrome. In 2010, more than 35 million people worldwide were estimated to be living with dementia. Some people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dementia is a progressive global cognitive impairment syndrome. In 2010, more than 35 million people worldwide were estimated to be living with dementia. Some people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) will progress to dementia but others remain stable or recover full function. There is great interest in finding good predictors of dementia in people with MCI. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the best-known and the most often used short screening tool for providing an overall measure of cognitive impairment in clinical, research and community settings.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the accuracy of the Mini Mental State Examination for the early detection of dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Specialized Register of diagnostic and intervention studies (inception to May 2014); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to May 2014); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to May 2014); BIOSIS (Web of Science) (inception to May 2014); Web of Science Core Collection, including the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) (inception to May 2014); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (inception to May 2014), and LILACS (BIREME) (1982 to May 2014). We also searched specialized sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews, most recently in May 2014: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). No language or date restrictions were applied to the electronic searches and methodological filters were not used as a method to restrict the search overall so as to maximize sensitivity. We also checked reference lists of relevant studies and reviews, tracked citations in Scopus and Science Citation Index, used searches of known relevant studies in PubMed to track related articles, and contacted research groups conducting work on MMSE for dementia diagnosis to try to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered longitudinal studies in which results of the MMSE administered to MCI participants at baseline were obtained and the reference standard was obtained by follow-up over time. We included participants recruited and clinically classified as individuals with MCI under Petersen and revised Petersen criteria, Matthews criteria, or a Clinical Dementia Rating = 0.5. We used acceptable and commonly used reference standards for dementia in general, Alzheimer's dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia and frontotemporal dementia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We screened all titles generated by the electronic database searches. Two review authors independently assessed the abstracts of all potentially relevant studies. We assessed the identified full papers for eligibility and extracted data to create two by two tables for dementia in general and other dementias. Two authors independently performed quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. Due to high heterogeneity and scarcity of data, we derived estimates of sensitivity at fixed values of specificity from the model we fitted to produce the summary receiver operating characteristic curve.
MAIN RESULTS
In this review, we included 11 heterogeneous studies with a total number of 1569 MCI patients followed for conversion to dementia. Four studies assessed the role of baseline scores of the MMSE in conversion from MCI to all-cause dementia and eight studies assessed this test in conversion from MCI to Alzheimer´s disease dementia. Only one study provided information about the MMSE and conversion from MCI to vascular dementia. For conversion from MCI to dementia in general, the accuracy of baseline MMSE scores ranged from sensitivities of 23% to 76% and specificities from 40% to 94%. In relationship to conversion from MCI to Alzheimer's disease dementia, the accuracy of baseline MMSE scores ranged from sensitivities of 27% to 89% and specificities from 32% to 90%. Only one study provided information about conversion from MCI to vascular dementia, presenting a sensitivity of 36% and a specificity of 80% with an incidence of vascular dementia of 6.2%. Although we had planned to explore possible sources of heterogeneity, this was not undertaken due to the scarcity of studies included in our analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review did not find evidence supporting a substantial role of MMSE as a stand-alone single-administration test in the identification of MCI patients who could develop dementia. Clinicians could prefer to request additional and extensive tests to be sure about the management of these patients. An important aspect to assess in future updates is if conversion to dementia from MCI stages could be predicted better by MMSE changes over time instead of single measurements. It is also important to assess if a set of tests, rather than an isolated one, may be more successful in predicting conversion from MCI to dementia.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Cognitive Dysfunction; Dementia; Dementia, Vascular; Disease Progression; Early Diagnosis; Frontotemporal Dementia; Humans; Lewy Body Disease; Mental Status and Dementia Tests; Neuropsychological Tests; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 34313331
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010783.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are widely used with the aim of preventing pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to alternating pressure (active) air beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 studies (9058 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 83 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 37.2 to 87.0 years (median: 69.1 years). Participants were largely from acute care settings (including accident and emergency departments). We synthesised data for six comparisons in the review: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus: foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces, reactive gel surfaces used in the operating room followed by foam surfaces used on the ward bed, and another type of alternating pressure air surface. Of the 32 included studies, 25 (78.1%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
pressure ulcer incidence Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce the proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.17; I = 63%; 4 studies, 2247 participants; low-certainty evidence). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds may reduce the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.76; I = 0%; 2 studies, 415 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of people developing new pressure ulcers between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and the following surfaces, as all these comparisons have very low-certainty evidence: (1) reactive water surfaces; (2) reactive fibre surfaces; and (3) reactive air surfaces. The comparisons between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces are presented narratively. Overall, all comparisons suggest little to no difference between these surfaces in pressure ulcer incidence (7 studies, 2833 participants; low-certainty evidence). Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer incidence for three comparisons. When time to pressure ulcer development is considered using a hazard ratio (HR), it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the risk of developing new pressure ulcers, over 90 days' follow-up, between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and foam surfaces (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.64; I = 86%; 2 studies, 2105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For the comparison with reactive air surfaces, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may have a higher risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer than those treated with reactive air surfaces over 14 days' follow-up (HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.83; 1 study, 308 participants). Neither of the two studies with time to ulcer incidence data suggested a difference in the risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer over 60 days' follow-up between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces. Secondary outcomes The included studies have data on (1) support-surface-associated patient comfort for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; (2) adverse events for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; and (3) health-related quality of life outcomes for the comparison involving foam surfaces. However, all these outcomes and comparisons have low or very low-certainty evidence and it is uncertain whether there are any differences in these outcomes. Included studies have data on cost effectiveness for two comparisons. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (1 study, 2029 participants) and that alternating pressure (active) air mattresses are probably more cost-effective than overlay versions of this technology for people in acute care settings (1 study, 1971 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is uncertain about the difference in pressure ulcer incidence between using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and other surfaces (reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and reactive air surfaces). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk compared with foam surfaces and reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds. People using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may be more likely to develop new pressure ulcers over 14 days' follow-up than those treated with reactive air surfaces in the nursing home setting; but as the result is sensitive to the choice of outcome measure it should be interpreted cautiously. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than reactive foam surfaces in preventing new pressure ulcers. Future studies should include time-to-event outcomes and assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Air; Bedding and Linens; Beds; Bias; Elasticity; Humans; Incidence; Middle Aged; Pressure; Pressure Ulcer; Publication Bias; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 33969911
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013620.pub2 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) May 2021The objective of this review was to compile validated functional shoulder assessment tools and analyse the methodological quality of their validations. Secondarily, we... (Review)
Review
The objective of this review was to compile validated functional shoulder assessment tools and analyse the methodological quality of their validations. Secondarily, we aimed to provide a comparison of the tools, including parameter descriptions, indications/applications, languages and operating instructions, to choose the most suitable for future clinical and research approaches. A systematic review (PRISMA) was conducted using: PubMed, WoS Scopus, CINHAL, Dialnet and reference lists until 2020. The main criteria for inclusion were that papers were original studies of validated tools or validation studies. Pre-established tables showed tools, validations, items/components, etc. The QUADAS-2 and COSMIN-RB were used to assess the methodological quality of validations. Ultimately, 85 studies were selected, 32 tools and 111 validations. Risk of bias scored lower than applicability, and patient selection got the best scores (QUADAS-2). Internal consistency had the highest quality and PROMs development the lowest (COSMIN-RB). Responsiveness was the most analysed metric property. Modified UCLA and SST obtained the highest quality in shoulder instability surgery, and SPADI in pain. The most approached topic was activities of daily living (81%). We compiled 32 validated functional shoulder assessment tools, and conducted an analysis of the methodological quality of 111 validations associated with them. Modified UCLA and SST showed the highest methodological quality in instability surgery and SPADI in pain.
PubMed: 34066777
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11050845 -
Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and... May 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic performance of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) for the detection of intermediate- and...
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic performance of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) for the detection of intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (IHPC).
METHODS
Two medical databases (PubMed and Web of Science) were systematically reviewed by 2 independent researchers. Studies published before March 15, 2022, that used bpMRI (i.e., T2-weighted images combined with diffusion-weighted imaging) to detect prostate cancer (PCa) were included. The results of prostatectomy or prostate biopsy were the reference standards for the studies. The Quality Assessment of Diagnosis Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Data on true- and false-positive and -negative results were extracted to complete 2×2 contingency tables, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for each study. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) plots were constructed using these results.
RESULTS
In all, 16 studies (6,174 patients) that used Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 or other scoring systems, such as Likert, SPL and Questionnaire were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and the diagnosis odds ratio of bpMRI in the detection of IHPC were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93), 0.67 (95% CI: 0.58-0.76), 2.8 (95% CI: 2.2-3.6), 0.14 (95% CI: 0.11-0.18), and 20 (95% CI: 15-27), respectively, with an area under the SROC curve of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92). There was considerable heterogeneity between the studies.
CONCLUSIONS
bpMRI exhibited a high negative predictive value and accuracy in the diagnosis of IHPC, and may be valuable for detecting PCa with poor prognosis. However, the bpMRI protocol needs to be standardized further to improve its wider applicability.
PubMed: 37179947
DOI: 10.21037/qims-22-1024 -
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) Sep 2022(1) Background: Cartilage degeneration with the natural aging process and the role of physical activity on cartilage wellness is still not clear. The objective of the... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Cartilage degeneration with the natural aging process and the role of physical activity on cartilage wellness is still not clear. The objective of the present review was to understand how different physical activity interventions affect the cartilage and to propose a Standard Operating Procedure for an exercise program to maintain knee joint health; (2) Methods: Articles were collected on three different electronic databases and screened against the eligibility criteria. Results were collected in tables and the main outcomes were discussed narratively; (3) Results: A total of 24 studies have been included after the screening process and aerobic, strength, flexibility, postural balance, and mobility interventions were detected. Different protocols and types of interventions were adopted by the authors; (4) Conclusions: Physical activity interventions have mainly positive outcomes on cartilage structure, but the protocols adopted are different and various. A Standard Operating Procedure has been proposed for a physical intervention focalized on cartilage wellness that could be adopted as an intervention in the clinical setting. Furthermore, the creation of a standardized protocol wants to help scientific research to move in the same direction.
PubMed: 36292268
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10101821 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Aug 2023To systematically review and meta-analyze the predictive value of the Fournier gangrene severity index (FGSI), the simplified FGSI (SFGSI), and the Uludag FGSI (UFGSI)... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and meta-analyze the predictive value of the Fournier gangrene severity index (FGSI), the simplified FGSI (SFGSI), and the Uludag FGSI (UFGSI) on mortality in patients affected by Fournier's Gangrene (FG).
METHODS
A search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, from January 2000 to May 2023, to identify original cohorts comparing data between surviving and non-surviving FG patients. The statistical analysis consisted of two parts. First, the mean and standard deviation (SD) of the FGSI, SFGSI, and UFGSI at admission were extrapolated from each study, and the pooled mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was obtained using the Der Simonian-Laird random-effect model. Second, to evaluate the accuracy of the FGSI, SFGSI, and UFSGI in predicting mortality, true positive (TP), false positive (FP), true negative (TN), and false negative (FN) values were extracted where possible and reported in 2 × 2 contingency tables. The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values were pooled, and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were constructed.
RESULTS
Overall, forty studies comprising 2257 patients were included. The pooled analysis revealed that the FGSI, SFGSI, and UFGSI values at admission were higher in non-survivors than survivors (MD: 5.53 (95% CI: 4.68-6.37); MD: 2.41 (95% CI: 1.06-3.77); and MD: 5.47 (95% CI: 3.68-7.26), respectively). Moreover, the AUC values of the FGSI, SFGSI, and UFGSI were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92), 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.87), and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The higher scores of the FGSI, SFGSI, and UFGSI on admission were associated with mortality. Moreover, when comparing accuracy rates, the UFGSI exhibited the highest AUC value.
PubMed: 37763051
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13091283 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2022Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds considerable promise for diagnostics in the field of gastroenterology. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the...
BACKGROUND
Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds considerable promise for diagnostics in the field of gastroenterology. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of AI models compared with the gold standard of experts and histopathology for the diagnosis of various gastrointestinal (GI) luminal pathologies including polyps, neoplasms, and inflammatory bowel disease.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Wiley Cochrane Library, and Web of Science electronic databases to identify studies assessing the diagnostic performance of AI models for GI luminal pathologies. We extracted binary diagnostic accuracy data and constructed contingency tables to derive the outcomes of interest: sensitivity and specificity. We performed a meta-analysis and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves (HSROC). The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the type of GI luminal disease, AI model, reference standard, and type of data used for analysis. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021288360).
FINDINGS
We included 73 studies, of which 31 were externally validated and provided sufficient information for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity of AI for detecting GI luminal pathologies was 91.9% (95% CI: 89.0-94.1) and specificity was 91.7% (95% CI: 87.4-94.7). Deep learning models (sensitivity: 89.8%, specificity: 91.9%) and ensemble methods (sensitivity: 95.4%, specificity: 90.9%) were the most commonly used models in the included studies. Majority of studies ( = 56, 76.7%) had a high risk of selection bias while 74% ( = 54) studies were low risk on reference standard and 67% ( = 49) were low risk for flow and timing bias.
INTERPRETATION
The review suggests high sensitivity and specificity of AI models for the detection of GI luminal pathologies. There is a need for large, multi-center trials in both high income countries and low- and middle- income countries to assess the performance of these AI models in real clinical settings and its impact on diagnosis and prognosis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=288360], identifier [CRD42021288360].
PubMed: 36405592
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1018937 -
JAMA Network Open Mar 2021Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a highly prevalent global health concern and is associated with many adverse outcomes for patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a highly prevalent global health concern and is associated with many adverse outcomes for patients.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the utility of the STOP-Bang (snoring, tiredness, observed apnea, blood pressure, body mass index, age, neck size, gender) questionnaire in the sleep clinic setting to screen for and stratify the risk of OSA among populations from different geographical regions.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, Embase, EmCare Nursing, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, Journals@Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL electronic databases were systematically searched from January 2008 to March 2020. This was done to identify studies that used the STOP-Bang questionnaire and polysomnography testing in adults referred to sleep clinics.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Clinical and demographic data were extracted from each article independently by 2 reviewers. The combined test characteristics were calculated using 2 × 2 contingency tables. Random-effects meta-analyses and metaregression with sensitivity analyses were performed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The combined test characteristics and area under summary receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were used to compare STOP-Bang questionnaire accuracy with polysomnography testing.
RESULTS
A total of 47 studies with 26 547 participants (mean [SD] age, 50 [5] years; mean [SD] body mass index, 32 [3]; 16 780 [65%] men) met the criteria for the systematic review. Studies were organized in different geographic regional groups: North America, South America, Europe, Middle East, East Asia, and South or Southeast Asia. The prevalence rates for all OSA, moderate to severe OSA, and severe OSA were 80% (95% CI, 80%-81%), 58% (95% CI, 58%-59%), and 39% (95% CI, 38%-39%), respectively. A STOP-Bang score of at least 3 had excellent sensitivity (>90%) and high discriminative power to exclude moderate to severe and severe OSA, with negative predictive values of 77% (95% CI, 75%-78%) and 91% (95% CI, 90%-92%), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of a STOP-Bang score of at least 3 to detect moderate to severe OSA was high (>0.80) in all regions except East Asia (0.52; 95% CI, 0.48-0.56).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the STOP-Bang questionnaire can be used as a screening tool to assist in triaging patients with suspected OSA referred to sleep clinics in different global regions.
Topics: Americas; Asia; Europe; Humans; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Surveys and Questionnaires; Symptom Assessment
PubMed: 33683333
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1009 -
Biomedicines Nov 2023To investigate the performance of the END-PAC model in predicting pancreatic cancer risk in individuals with new-onset diabetes (NOD). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the performance of the END-PAC model in predicting pancreatic cancer risk in individuals with new-onset diabetes (NOD).
METHODS
The PRISMA statement standards were followed to conduct a systematic review. All studies investigating the performance of the END-PAC model in predicting pancreatic cancer risk in individuals with NOD were included. Two-by-two tables, coupled forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic plots were constructed using the number of true positives, false negatives, true negatives and false positives. Diagnostic random effects models were used to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity points.
RESULTS
A total of 26,752 individuals from four studies were included. The median follow-up was 3 years and the pooled risk of pancreatic cancer was 0.8% (95% CI 0.6-1.0%). END-PAC score ≥ 3, which classifies the patients as high risk, was associated with better predictive performance (sensitivity: 55.8% (43.9-67%); specificity: 82.0% (76.4-86.5%)) in comparison with END-PAC score 1-2 (sensitivity: 22.2% (16.6-29.2%); specificity: 69.9% (67.3-72.4%)) and END-PAC score < 1 (sensitivity: 18.0% (12.8-24.6%); specificity: 50.9% (48.6-53.2%)) which classify the patients as intermediate and low risk, respectively. The evidence quality was judged to be moderate to high.
CONCLUSIONS
END-PAC is a promising model for predicting pancreatic cancer risk in individuals with NOD. The score ≥3 should be considered as optimum cut-off value. More studies are needed to assess whether it could improve early pancreatic cancer detection rate, pancreatic cancer re-section rate, and pancreatic cancer treatment outcomes.
PubMed: 38002040
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11113040