-
Journal of the Belgian Society of... Jan 2020The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) for...
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) for gynecological cancers of the pelvis based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search for original diagnostic studies was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science. The methodological quality of each study was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Data necessary for entry in 2 × 2 contingency tables were obtained, and patients, study, and imaging characteristics were extracted from the selected articles. Statistical analysis included data pooling, heterogeneity testing, sensitivity analyses, forest plotting, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve construction.
RESULT
Twelve studies met our predefined inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Patient-based analysis, the pooled sensitivity rate, specificity rate, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for F-FDG PET/MRI in diagnosis of gynecological malignancies were 74.2% (95% confidence interval, 66.2-80.8%), 89.8% (95% CI, 82.2-94.3%), 26 (95% CI, 10-67), and 0.834, respectively. On lesion-based analysis, the pooled sensitivity rate, specificity rate, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve were 87.5% (95% CI, 75.8-94.0%), 88.2% (95% CI, 84.2-91.3%), 50 (95% CI, 23-111), and 0.922, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis demonstrated that F-FDG PET/MRI is a promising diagnostic method for primary tumors, nodal staging, and recurrence in patients with gynecological malignancies of the pelvis.
PubMed: 31998862
DOI: 10.5334/jbsr.1981 -
The British Journal of Radiology Dec 2019To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for detecting extracapsular extension (ECE) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for detecting extracapsular extension (ECE) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa).
METHODS AND MATERIALS
We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library up to December 2018. We included studies that used mpMRI to differentiate ECE from organ-confined PCa with a combination of weighted imaging (WI), diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. All studies included had pathological diagnosis with radical prostatectomy. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of included studies by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. We calculated pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, diagnostic odds ratios and receiver operating characteristic curve for mpMRI from 2 × 2 tables.
RESULTS
A total of 17 studies that comprised 3374 participants were included. The pooled data showed a sensitivity of 0.55 (95% confidence interval 0.43, 0.66]) and specificity of 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.82, 0.91) for extracapsular extension detection in PCa.
CONCLUSION
First, our meta-analysis shows moderate sensitivity and high specificity for mpMRI to differentiate ECE from organ-confined prostate cancer before surgery. Second, our meta-analysis shows that mpMRI had no significant differences in performance compared with the former meta-analysis with use of WI alone or with additional functional MRI.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
It is the first meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of mpMRI in combination of WI, diffusion-weightedimaging and dynamiccontrast-enhanced-MRI for extracapsular extension detection.
Topics: Confidence Intervals; Contrast Media; Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Preoperative Care; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; ROC Curve; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 31596123
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190480 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2019Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy is a pregnancy-specific liver disorder, possibly associated with an increased risk of severe fetal adverse events. Total serum bile...
BACKGROUND
Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy is a pregnancy-specific liver disorder, possibly associated with an increased risk of severe fetal adverse events. Total serum bile acids (TSBA) concentration, alone or in combination with serum aminotransferases, have been the most often used biomarkers for the diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy in clinical practice. Serum bile acid profile, composed of primary or secondary, conjugated or non-conjugated bile acids, may provide more specific disease information.
OBJECTIVES
To assess and compare, independently or in combination, the diagnostic accuracy of total serum bile acids or serum bile acids profile, or both, for the diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy in pregnant women, presenting with pruritus. To define the optimal cut-off values for components of serum bile acid profile; to investigate possible sources of heterogeneity.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, BIOSIS, CINAHL, two Chinese databases (CKNI, VIP), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Evidence Search: Health and Social Care by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the World Health Organization (WHO) Reproductive Health Library (RHL), and the Turning Research into Practice database (TRIP). The most recent date of search was 6 May 2019. We identified additional references by handsearching the references of articles, meta-analyses, and evidence-based guidelines retrieved from the computerised databases, on-line trial registries, and grey literature through OpenSIGLE, National Technical Information Service (NTIS), ProQuest Dissertations & Thesis Database, and Index to Theses in Great Britain and Ireland.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Prospective or retrospective diagnostic case-control or cross-sectional studies, irrespective of publication date, format, and language, which evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of total serum bile acids (TSBA) or components of serum bile acid profile for the diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy in pregnant women of any age or ethnicity, in any clinical setting, symptomatic for pruritus.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected studies by reading titles, abstracts, or full texts, and assessing their fulfilment of our inclusion criteria. We emailed primary authors to request missing data or individual participant data. Having extracted data from each included study, we built the two-by-two tables for each primary study and for all the index tests considered. We estimated sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We presented data in coupled forest plots, showing sensitivities and specificities of each study, and we plotted the studies in the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) space. We performed meta-analyses adopting the hierarchical summary ROC model (HSROC) or the bivariate model to meta-analyse the data. We made indirect comparisons of the considered index tests by adding the index tests as covariates to the bivariate or HSROC models. We performed heterogeneity analysis and sensitivity analysis on studies assessing TSBA accuracy. We used Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) and SAS statistical software, release 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), to perform all statistical analyses. We used QUADAS-2 domains to assess the risk of bias of the included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
Our search yielded 5073 references, but at the end of our selection process, only 16 studies fulfilled the review inclusion criteria. Nine of these provided individual participant data. We analysed only data concerning TSBA, cholic acid (CA), glycocholic acid (GCA), chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA), and CA/CDCA because the remaining planned index tests were assessed in few studies. Only one study had low risk of bias in all four QUADAS-2 domains. The most biased domains were the patient sampling and the reference standard domains. When considering all studies with a cut-off of 10 μmol/L, TSBA overall sensitivity ranged from 0.72 to 0.98 and specificity ranged from 0.81 to 0.97. After a sensitivity analysis excluding case-control studies, TSBA sensitivity ranged from 0.48 to 0.66 and specificity from 0.52 to 0.99. After a sensitivity analysis excluding studies in which TSBA was part of the reference standard, TSBA sensitivity ranged from 0.49 to 0.65 and specificity from 0.53 to 0.99. We found the estimates of the overall accuracy for some serum bile acid components (CA, GCA, CDCA, and CA/CDCA) to be imprecise, with the CI for sensitivity and specificity very wide or impossible to calculate. Indirect comparisons between serum bile acid profile components and TSBA were not statistically significant. None of the heterogeneity analysis performed was statistically significant, except for the timing of assessment of TSBA (onset of symptoms, peak value among multiple assessments, delivery) but without clinically relevant results. We could not analyse the diagnostic accuracy of combinations of index tests because none of the included studies carried them out, and because of the small number of included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The overall high risk of bias, the existing concern regarding applicability of the results in clinical practice, and the great heterogeneity of the results in the included studies prevents us from making recommendations and reaching definitive conclusions at the present time. Thus, we do not find any compelling evidence to recommend or refute the routine use of any of these tests in clinical practice. So far, the diagnostic accuracy of TSBA for intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy might have been overestimated. There were too few studies to permit a precise estimate of the accuracy of serum bile acid profile components. Further primary clinical research is mandatory. We need both further phase II and phase III diagnostic studies.
Topics: Bile Acids and Salts; Biomarkers; Cholestasis, Intrahepatic; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31283001
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012546.pub2 -
Cancer Management and Research 2019To evaluate the diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for local staging of prostate cancer. Databases of Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid and...
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for local staging of prostate cancer. Databases of Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched up to May 31, 2018, with language restricted to English. All studies concerning multiparametric magnet resonance imaging (mpMRI) with ADC for detection of extracapsular extension (ECE, T3a) and/or extraprostatic extension (EPE, overall stage of T3) were identified by two reviewers independently, and quality of included studies was evaluated using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. True positive, false positive, false negative and true negative of each study were extracted to reconstruct the 2×2 tables for evaluating diagnostic accuracy. Summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and corresponding 95% CIs were calculated with bivariate model and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model, then presented in forest plots. Multiple subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed, and publication bias was evaluated with Deeks funnel. A total of 18 studies were included, with 6 involved ECE and 12 for EPE. Pooled sensitivity was 80.5% (95% CI 76.5-83.9%) with specificity of 69.1% (95% CI 62.3-75.2%). Multiple subgroup analyses showed that if ADC and length of capsular contact are regarded as independent predictors, pooled sensitivity was 85% (95% CI 77-90%) and 81.1% (95% CI 76.0-85.3%), with specificity of 70.8% (95% CI 56.3-82.0%) and 66.6% (95% CI 57.6-74.5%), respectively. Meta-regression demonstrated that there was no substantially significant difference in types of coil, magnet field strength (1.5T versus 3.0T), and analysis method (per-lesion versus per-patient). By introducing ADC to MRI, we could obtain favorable sensitivity for diagnostic performance of EPE, but with a little decreased specificity.
PubMed: 31114355
DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S191738 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019Rapid and accurate detection of stroke by paramedics or other emergency clinicians at the time of first contact is crucial for timely initiation of appropriate...
BACKGROUND
Rapid and accurate detection of stroke by paramedics or other emergency clinicians at the time of first contact is crucial for timely initiation of appropriate treatment. Several stroke recognition scales have been developed to support the initial triage. However, their accuracy remains uncertain and there is no agreement which of the scales perform better.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically identify and review the evidence pertaining to the test accuracy of validated stroke recognition scales, as used in a prehospital or emergency room (ER) setting to screen people suspected of having stroke.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and the Science Citation Index to 30 January 2018. We handsearched the reference lists of all included studies and other relevant publications and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies or unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies evaluating the accuracy of stroke recognition scales used in a prehospital or ER setting to identify stroke and transient Ischemic attack (TIA) in people suspected of stroke. The scales had to be applied to actual people and the results compared to a final diagnosis of stroke or TIA. We excluded studies that applied scales to patient records; enrolled only screen-positive participants and without complete 2 × 2 data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently conducted a two-stage screening of all publications identified by the searches, extracted data and assessed the methodologic quality of the included studies using a tailored version of QUADAS-2. A third review author acted as an arbiter. We recalculated study-level sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and presented them in forest plots and in the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) space. When a sufficient number of studies reported the accuracy of the test in the same setting (prehospital or ER) and the level of heterogeneity was relatively low, we pooled the results using the bivariate random-effects model. We plotted the results in the summary ROC (SROC) space presenting an estimate point (mean sensitivity and specificity) with 95% CI and prediction regions. Because of the small number of studies, we did not conduct meta-regression to investigate between-study heterogeneity and the relative accuracy of the scales. Instead, we summarized the results in tables and diagrams, and presented our findings narratively.
MAIN RESULTS
We selected 23 studies for inclusion (22 journal articles and one conference abstract). We evaluated the following scales: Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS; 11 studies), Recognition of Stroke in the Emergency Room (ROSIER; eight studies), Face Arm Speech Time (FAST; five studies), Los Angeles Prehospital Stroke Scale (LAPSS; five studies), Melbourne Ambulance Stroke Scale (MASS; three studies), Ontario Prehospital Stroke Screening Tool (OPSST; one study), Medic Prehospital Assessment for Code Stroke (MedPACS; one study) and PreHospital Ambulance Stroke Test (PreHAST; one study). Nine studies compared the accuracy of two or more scales. We considered 12 studies at high risk of bias and one with applicability concerns in the patient selection domain; 14 at unclear risk of bias and one with applicability concerns in the reference standard domain; and the risk of bias in the flow and timing domain was high in one study and unclear in another 16.We pooled the results from five studies evaluating ROSIER in the ER and five studies evaluating LAPSS in a prehospital setting. The studies included in the meta-analysis of ROSIER were of relatively good methodologic quality and produced a summary sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.91), with the prediction interval ranging from approximately 0.75 to 0.95. This means that the test will miss on average 12% of people with stroke/TIA which, depending on the circumstances, could range from 5% to 25%. We could not obtain a reliable summary estimate of specificity due to extreme heterogeneity in study-level results. The summary sensitivity of LAPSS was 0.83 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.89) and summary specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.96). However, we were uncertain in the validity of these results as four of the studies were at high and one at uncertain risk of bias. We did not report summary estimates for the rest of the scales, as the number of studies per test per setting was small, the risk of bias was high or uncertain, the results were highly heterogenous, or a combination of these.Studies comparing two or more scales in the same participants reported that ROSIER and FAST had similar accuracy when used in the ER. In the field, CPSS was more sensitive than MedPACS and LAPSS, but had similar sensitivity to that of MASS; and MASS was more sensitive than LAPSS. In contrast, MASS, ROSIER and MedPACS were more specific than CPSS; and the difference in the specificities of MASS and LAPSS was not statistically significant.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In the field, CPSS had consistently the highest sensitivity and, therefore, should be preferred to other scales. Further evidence is needed to determine its absolute accuracy and whether alternatives scales, such as MASS and ROSIER, which might have comparable sensitivity but higher specificity, should be used instead, to achieve better overall accuracy. In the ER, ROSIER should be the test of choice, as it was evaluated in more studies than FAST and showed consistently high sensitivity. In a cohort of 100 people of whom 62 have stroke/TIA, the test will miss on average seven people with stroke/TIA (ranging from three to 16). We were unable to obtain an estimate of its summary specificity. Because of the small number of studies per test per setting, high risk of bias, substantial differences in study characteristics and large between-study heterogeneity, these findings should be treated as provisional hypotheses that need further verification in better-designed studies.
Topics: Humans; Ischemic Attack, Transient; Mass Screening; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Stroke
PubMed: 30964558
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011427.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2014, Issue 2.The presence of residual disease after primary debulking surgery is a highly...
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2014, Issue 2.The presence of residual disease after primary debulking surgery is a highly significant prognostic factor in women with advanced ovarian cancer. In up to 60% of women, residual tumour of > 1 cm is left behind after primary debulking surgery (defined as suboptimal debulking). These women might have benefited from neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) prior to interval debulking surgery instead of primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy. It is therefore important to select accurately those women who would best be treated with primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy from those who would benefit from NACT prior to surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To determine if performing a laparoscopy, in addition to conventional diagnostic work-up, in women suspected of advanced ovarian cancer is accurate in predicting the resectability of disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, MEDION and Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) to July 2018. We also checked references of identified primary studies and review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy to determine the resectability of disease in women who are suspected of advanced ovarian cancer and planned to receive primary debulking surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently assessed the quality of included studies using QUADAS-2 and extracted data on study and participant characteristics, index test, target condition and reference standard. We extracted data for two-by-two tables and summarised these graphically. We calculated sensitivity and specificity and negative predictive values.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 studies, reporting on 14 cohorts of women (including 1563 participants), of which one was a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Laparoscopic assessment suggested that disease was suitable for optimal debulking surgery (no macroscopic residual disease or residual disease < 1 cm (negative predictive values)) in 54% to 96% of women who had macroscopic complete debulking surgery (no visible disease at end of laparotomy) and in 69% to 100% of women who had optimal debulking surgery (residual tumour < 1 cm at end of laparotomy).Only two studies avoided partial verification bias by operating on all women independent of laparoscopic findings, and provided data to calculate sensitivity and specificity. These two studies had no false positive laparoscopies (i.e. no women had a laparoscopy indicating unresectable disease and then went on to have optimal debulking surgery (no disease > 1 cm remaining)).Due to the large heterogeneity pooling of the data was not possible for meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Laparoscopy may be a useful tool to identify those women who have unresectable disease, as no women were inappropriately unexplored. However, some women had suboptimal primary debulking surgery, despite laparoscopy predicting optimal debulking and data are at high risk of verification bias as only two studies performed the reference standard (debulking laparotomy) in test (laparoscopy)-positive women. Using a prediction model does not increase the sensitivity and will result in more unnecessarily explored women, due to a lower specificity.
Topics: Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Humans; Laparoscopes; Laparoscopy; Neoplasm, Residual; Ovarian Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tumor Burden; Validation Studies as Topic
PubMed: 30907434
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009786.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019Dementia assessment often involves initial screening, using a brief tool, followed by more detailed assessment where required. The AD-8 is a short questionnaire,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dementia assessment often involves initial screening, using a brief tool, followed by more detailed assessment where required. The AD-8 is a short questionnaire, completed by a suitable 'informant' who knows the person well. AD-8 is designed to assess change in functional performance secondary to cognitive change.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the informant-based AD-8 questionnaire, in detection of all-cause (undifferentiated) dementia in adults. Where data were available, we described the following: the diagnostic accuracy of the AD-8 at various predefined threshold scores; the diagnostic accuracy of the AD-8 for each healthcare setting and the effects of heterogeneity on the reported diagnostic accuracy of the AD-8.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following sources on 27 May 2014, with an update to 7 June 2018: ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), BIOSIS Previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), Web of Science Core Collection (includes Conference Proceedings Citation Index) (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and LILACS (BIREME). We checked reference lists of relevant studies and reviews, used searches of known relevant studies in PubMed to track related articles, and contacted research groups conducting work on the AD-8 to try to find additional studies. We developed a sensitive search strategy and used standardised database subject headings as appropriate. Foreign language publications were translated.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected those studies which included the AD-8 to assess for the presence of dementia and where dementia diagnosis was confirmed with clinical assessment. We only included those studies where the AD-8 was used as an informant assessment. We made no exclusions in relation to healthcare setting, language of AD-8 or the AD-8 score used to define a 'test positive' case.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We screened all titles generated by electronic database searches, and reviewed abstracts of potentially relevant studies. Two independent assessors checked full papers for eligibility and extracted data. We extracted data into two-by-two tables to allow calculation of accuracy metrics for individual studies. We then created summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios using the bivariate approach and plotting results in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space. We determined quality assessment (risk of bias and applicability) using the QUADAS-2 tool.
MAIN RESULTS
From 36 papers describing AD-8 test accuracy, we included 10 papers. We utilised data from nine papers with 4045 individuals, 1107 of whom (27%) had a clinical diagnosis of dementia. Pooled analysis of seven studies, using an AD-8 informant cut-off score of two, indicated that sensitivity was 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 0.96); specificity was 0.64 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.82); the positive likelihood ratio was 2.53 (95% CI 1.38 to 4.64); and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.12 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.21). Pooled analysis of five studies, using an AD-8 informant cut-off score of three, indicated that sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.96); specificity was 0.76 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.89); the positive likelihood ratio was 3.86 (95% CI 2.03 to 7.34); and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.12 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.24).Four studies were conducted in community settings; four were in secondary care (one in the acute hospital); and one study was in primary care. The AD-8 has a higher relative sensitivity (1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21), but lower relative specificity (0.51, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.09) in secondary care compared to community care settings.There was heterogeneity across the included studies. Dementia prevalence rate varied from 12% to 90% of included participants. The tool was also used in various different languages. Among all the included studies there was evidence of risk of bias. Issues included the selection of participants, conduct of index test, and flow of assessment procedures.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The high sensitivity of the AD-8 suggests it can be used to identify adults who may benefit from further specialist assessment and diagnosis, but is not a diagnostic test in itself. This pattern of high sensitivity and lower specificity is often suited to a screening test. Test accuracy varies by setting, however data in primary care and acute hospital settings are limited. This review identified significant heterogeneity and risk of bias, which may affect the validity of its summary findings.
Topics: Aged; Dementia; Humans; Patient Health Questionnaire; Proxy; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 30828783
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011121.pub2 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Feb 2019A novel method, termed loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), was developed by Notomi et al. (2000). Individually published results have been reported that this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A novel method, termed loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), was developed by Notomi et al. (2000). Individually published results have been reported that this technology has been successfully applied to the detection of a variety of pathogens. However, the overall diagnostic accuracy of LAMP for Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MP) remains unclear. A meta-analysis was therefore performed to review the accuracy of LAMP for Mycoplasma pneumoniae.
METHODS
Cochrane Library and PubMed were systematically searched and checked for studies using LAMP for detecting mycoplasma pneumoniae. We used PCR as a reference standard to evaluate the quality of the studies eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Then, the data from the studies were extracted by two independent assessors. Meta-DiSc 1.4 software was utilized to test the heterogeneity of sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SP), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnosis odds ratio (DOR). The pooled analysis results were plotted, and the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was plotted by calculating the area under the curve (AUC). Generated pooled summary estimates (95% CIs) were calculated for the overall accuracy, and a bivariate meta-regression model was used for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Seven studies with nine fourfold tables were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled SEN and SPE for diagnosing Mycoplasma pneumoniae were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-0.99), respectively. The PLR was 31.25 (95% CI: 14.83-65.87), NLR 0.10 (95% CI: 0.05-0.22), DOR 399.32 (95% CI: 172.01-927.00), and AUC 0.9892.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, compared with PCR, LAMP is a valuable alternative method for Mycoplasma pneumoniae diagnosis in clinic with high sensitivity and specificity. However, more evidence is required to confirm that LAMP can fully replace other methods in the clinical diagnosis of MP.
Topics: Area Under Curve; Humans; Mycoplasma pneumoniae; Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques; Odds Ratio; Pneumonia, Mycoplasma; ROC Curve; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 30782134
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-019-3799-4 -
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... Jul 2019Cesarean section rates are increasing with a decrease in the rate of trial of labor after cesarean section. The objective of this study was to systematically review the...
INTRODUCTION
Cesarean section rates are increasing with a decrease in the rate of trial of labor after cesarean section. The objective of this study was to systematically review the predictive characteristics of sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness for uterine rupture during labor.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The review was carried out in agreement with PRISMA and SEDATE guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Library were searched from 1990 until November 2018. Quality of included studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Data were extracted to construct 2 × 2 tables from each study comparing ultrasound measurement with uterine defect at time of delivery. The data were plotted as a summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) curve using the hierarchical SROC model.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight observational cohort studies met the selection criteria for inclusion. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness was measured at a gestational age of 36-40 weeks in women with a previous cesarean section. The risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability were low among most studies. The sonographic measurement was correlated with either delivery outcome or lower uterine segment thickness at the time of repeat cesarean section. The cut-off value for lower uterine segment thickness ranged from 1.5 to 4.05 mm across all studies. An association between thin lower uterine segment measurement and uterine dehiscence and uterine rupture was shown in 27 and four studies, respectively. Nineteen studies were included in a meta-analysis with a subgroup analysis by ultrasound methodology. In the subgroup using the ultrasound methodology associated with uterine rupture, the cut-off value is more precise (2.0-3.65 mm) among these 12 studies. There were 18 cases (1.0%) of uterine rupture, 120 (6.6%) of uterine dehiscence and 1674 (92.4%) women with no uterine defect. The SROC curve showed a sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.92) and specificity of 0.77 (95% CI 0.70-0.83). The negative likelihood ratio was 0.11 (95% CI 0.08-0.16) and the diagnostic odds ratio was 34.0 (95% CI 18.2-63.5).
CONCLUSIONS
Lower uterine segment thickness >3.65 mm, measured using a standardized ultrasound technique, is associated with a lower likelihood of uterine rupture.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Obstetric Labor Complications; Predictive Value of Tests; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Ultrasonography, Prenatal; Uterine Rupture
PubMed: 30779345
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13585 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Jan 2019The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for detection of endoleak after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for detection of endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).
METHODS
We searched electronic bibliographic databases for original articles comparing concurrent CEUS and computed tomography angiography for detection of endoleak after EVAR. We assessed the methodologic quality of the studies with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. We constructed 2 × 2 contingency tables for all selected studies including true-positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative results for all endoleaks and for type I and type III endoleaks. We used a mixed-effects logistic regression model to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity. We developed hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves and calculated the area under the curve (AUC).
RESULTS
We identified 26 studies reporting a total of 2638 paired scans in 2217 patients. The major risk of bias of the selected studies pertained to blinding for the index test and the reference standard. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS for all endoleaks were 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-0.97) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.96), respectively. The AUC was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.93-0.99). The summary estimate of sensitivity and specificity for type I and type III endoleaks was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.8-1.00) and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.99-1.00), respectively. The AUC was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.99-1.00).
CONCLUSIONS
CEUS has a high sensitivity and specificity in the detection of endoleaks after EVAR. CEUS is a useful tool in EVAR surveillance.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Contrast Media; Endoleak; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Predictive Value of Tests; Reproducibility of Results; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 30385149
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.07.044