-
Annals of Internal Medicine Mar 2016Iodine contrast media are essential components of many imaging procedures. An important potential side effect is contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Iodine contrast media are essential components of many imaging procedures. An important potential side effect is contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN).
PURPOSE
To compare CIN risk for contrast media within and between osmolality classes in patients receiving diagnostic or therapeutic imaging procedures.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials.gov, and Scopus through June 2015.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized, controlled trials that reported CIN-related outcomes in patients receiving low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM) or iso-osmolar contrast media for imaging.
DATA EXTRACTION
Independent study selection and quality assessment by 2 reviewers and dual extraction of study characteristics and results.
DATA SYNTHESIS
None of the 5 studies that compared types of LOCM reported a statistically significant or clinically important difference among study groups, but the strength of evidence was low. Twenty-five randomized, controlled trials found a slight reduction in CIN risk with the iso-osmolar contrast media agent iodixanol compared with a diverse group of LOCM that just reached statistical significance in a meta-analysis (pooled relative risk, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.99]; P = 0.045). This comparison's strength of evidence was moderate. In a meta regression of randomized, controlled trials of iodixanol, no relationship was found between route of administration and comparative CIN risk.
LIMITATIONS
Few studies compared LOCM. Procedural details about contrast administration were not uniformly reported. Few studies specified clinical indications or severity of baseline renal impairment.
CONCLUSION
No differences were found in CIN risk among types of LOCM. Iodixanol had a slightly lower risk for CIN than LOCM, but the lower risk did not exceed a criterion for clinical importance.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Topics: Contrast Media; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Incidence; Kidney Diseases; Osmolar Concentration; Risk Factors; Triiodobenzoic Acids
PubMed: 26830055
DOI: 10.7326/M15-1402 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015There is evidence that water-loss dehydration is common in older people and associated with many causes of morbidity and mortality. However, it is unclear what clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is evidence that water-loss dehydration is common in older people and associated with many causes of morbidity and mortality. However, it is unclear what clinical symptoms, signs and tests may be used to identify early dehydration in older people, so that support can be mobilised to improve hydration before health and well-being are compromised.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of state (one time), minimally invasive clinical symptoms, signs and tests to be used as screening tests for detecting water-loss dehydration in older people by systematically reviewing studies that have measured a reference standard and at least one index test in people aged 65 years and over. Water-loss dehydration was defined primarily as including everyone with either impending or current water-loss dehydration (including all those with serum osmolality ≥ 295 mOsm/kg as being dehydrated).
SEARCH METHODS
Structured search strategies were developed for MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL, LILACS, DARE and HTA databases (The Cochrane Library), and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Reference lists of included studies and identified relevant reviews were checked. Authors of included studies were contacted for details of further studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Titles and abstracts were scanned and all potentially relevant studies obtained in full text. Inclusion of full text studies was assessed independently in duplicate, and disagreements resolved by a third author. We wrote to authors of all studies that appeared to have collected data on at least one reference standard and at least one index test, and in at least 10 people aged ≥ 65 years, even where no comparative analysis has been published, requesting original dataset so we could create 2 x 2 tables.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Diagnostic accuracy of each test was assessed against the best available reference standard for water-loss dehydration (serum or plasma osmolality cut-off ≥ 295 mOsm/kg, serum osmolarity or weight change) within each study. For each index test study data were presented in forest plots of sensitivity and specificity. The primary target condition was water-loss dehydration (including either impending or current water-loss dehydration). Secondary target conditions were intended as current (> 300 mOsm/kg) and impending (295 to 300 mOsm/kg) water-loss dehydration, but restricted to current dehydration in the final review.We conducted bivariate random-effects meta-analyses (Stata/IC, StataCorp) for index tests where there were at least four studies and study datasets could be pooled to construct sensitivity and specificity summary estimates. We assigned the same approach for index tests with continuous outcome data for each of three pre-specified cut-off points investigated.Pre-set minimum sensitivity of a useful test was 60%, minimum specificity 75%. As pre-specifying three cut-offs for each continuous test may have led to missing a cut-off with useful sensitivity and specificity, we conducted post-hoc exploratory analyses to create receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves where there appeared some possibility of a useful cut-off missed by the original three. These analyses enabled assessment of which tests may be worth assessing in further research. A further exploratory analysis assessed the value of combining the best two index tests where each had some individual predictive ability.
MAIN RESULTS
There were few published studies of the diagnostic accuracy of state (one time), minimally invasive clinical symptoms, signs or tests to be used as screening tests for detecting water-loss dehydration in older people. Therefore, to complete this review we sought, analysed and included raw datasets that included a reference standard and an index test in people aged ≥ 65 years.We included three studies with published diagnostic accuracy data and a further 21 studies provided datasets that we analysed. We assessed 67 tests (at three cut-offs for each continuous outcome) for diagnostic accuracy of water-loss dehydration (primary target condition) and of current dehydration (secondary target condition).Only three tests showed any ability to diagnose water-loss dehydration (including both impending and current water-loss dehydration) as stand-alone tests: expressing fatigue (sensitivity 0.71 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.96), specificity 0.75 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.85), in one study with 71 participants, but two additional studies had lower sensitivity); missing drinks between meals (sensitivity 1.00 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.00), specificity 0.77 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.86), in one study with 71 participants) and BIA resistance at 50 kHz (sensitivities 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.90) and specificities of 1.00 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.00) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.99) in 15 and 22 people respectively for two studies, but with sensitivities of 0.54 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.81) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.79) and specificities of 0.50 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.84) and 0.19 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.21) in 21 and 1947 people respectively in two other studies). In post-hoc ROC plots drinks intake, urine osmolality and axillial moisture also showed limited diagnostic accuracy. No test was consistently useful in more than one study.Combining two tests so that an individual both missed some drinks between meals and expressed fatigue was sensitive at 0.71 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.96) and specific at 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.97).There was sufficient evidence to suggest that several stand-alone tests often used to assess dehydration in older people (including fluid intake, urine specific gravity, urine colour, urine volume, heart rate, dry mouth, feeling thirsty and BIA assessment of intracellular water or extracellular water) are not useful, and should not be relied on individually as ways of assessing presence or absence of dehydration in older people.No tests were found consistently useful in diagnosing current water-loss dehydration.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence of the diagnostic utility of any individual clinical symptom, sign or test or combination of tests to indicate water-loss dehydration in older people. Individual tests should not be used in this population to indicate dehydration; they miss a high proportion of people with dehydration, and wrongly label those who are adequately hydrated.Promising tests identified by this review need to be further assessed, as do new methods in development. Combining several tests may improve diagnostic accuracy.
Topics: Aged; Dehydration; Drinking Water; Electric Impedance; Female; Humans; Male; Mouth Diseases; Osmolar Concentration; Sensitivity and Specificity; Skin Physiological Phenomena; Symptom Assessment; Urine
PubMed: 25924806
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009647.pub2 -
BMC Medicine Dec 2014Hyponatremia is a common electrolyte disorder. Multiple organizations have published guidance documents to assist clinicians in managing hyponatremia. We aimed to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hyponatremia is a common electrolyte disorder. Multiple organizations have published guidance documents to assist clinicians in managing hyponatremia. We aimed to explore the scope, content, and consistency of these documents.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and websites of guideline organizations and professional societies to September 2014 without language restriction for Clinical Practice Guidelines (defined as any document providing guidance informed by systematic literature review) and Consensus Statements (any other guidance document) developed specifically to guide differential diagnosis or treatment of hyponatremia. Four reviewers appraised guideline quality using the 23-item AGREE II instrument, which rates reporting of the guidance development process across six domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence. Total scores were calculated as standardized averages by domain.
RESULTS
We found ten guidance documents; five clinical practice guidelines and five consensus statements. Overall, quality was mixed: two clinical practice guidelines attained an average score of >50% for all of the domains, three rated the evidence in a systematic way and two graded strength of the recommendations. All five consensus statements received AGREE scores below 60% for each of the specific domains.The guidance documents varied widely in scope. All dealt with therapy and seven included recommendations on diagnosis, using serum osmolality to confirm hypotonic hyponatremia, and volume status, urinary sodium concentration, and urinary osmolality for further classification of the hyponatremia. They differed, however, in classification thresholds, what additional tests to consider, and when to initiate diagnostic work-up. Eight guidance documents advocated hypertonic NaCl in severely symptomatic, acute onset (<48 h) hyponatremia. In chronic (>48 h) or asymptomatic cases, recommended treatments were NaCl 0.9%, fluid restriction, and cause-specific therapy for hypovolemic, euvolemic, and hypervolemic hyponatremia, respectively. Eight guidance documents recommended limits for speed of increase of sodium concentration, but these varied between 8 and 12 mmol/L per 24 h. Inconsistencies also existed in the recommended dose of NaCl, its initial infusion speed, and which second line interventions to consider.
CONCLUSIONS
Current guidance documents on the assessment and treatment of hyponatremia vary in methodological rigor and recommendations are not always consistent.
Topics: Consensus; Humans; Hyponatremia; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 25539784
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-014-0231-1 -
Psychiatry Research Jul 2014Life-threatening hyponatremia in psychotic patients is common and typically is attributable to either antipsychotic medication or to acute psychosis in those with the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Life-threatening hyponatremia in psychotic patients is common and typically is attributable to either antipsychotic medication or to acute psychosis in those with the polydipsia-hyponatremia syndrome. The preferred treatment for one situation may worsen the hyponatremia if caused by the other situation. Hence it is critical to distinguish between these two possibilities. Case reports and series were identified through electronic databases. Fifty-four cases of hyponatremia without recognized causes in psychotic patients were divided into those with dilute (
osmolality) or concentrated (>plasma osmolality) urine. The distribution of urine concentration and measures likely to be associated with psychotic illness and its treatment were compared in both groups. Naranjo׳s scale was utilized to determine the probability hyponatremia was drug-induced. Urine osmolality fit a bimodal distribution (intersection 219mOsm/kg) better than a unimodal distribution. 'Probable' drug-induced cases occurred 6.8 (95%CI=1.6-28.9) times more often in those with concentrated urine. Acute psychotic exacerbations occurred 4.5 (95%CI=0.4-54.1) times more often in those with dilute urine. These findings, as well as several other trends in the data, indicate that measures of urine concentration can help distinguish between antipsychotic-induced and psychosis-induced hyponatremia. Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Humans; Hyponatremia; Osmolar Concentration; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 24726819
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.03.021