A Diagnostic Test Meta‐Analysis Evaluating Imaging‐based and Blood Biomarker‐based Assessment Tools for Fibrosis after Liver Transplantation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng Han Ng ◽  
Darren Jun Hao Tan ◽  
Xiong Chang Lim ◽  
Jie Ning Yong ◽  
Nicholas Syn ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaltafit Abror Jeem ◽  
Refa Nabila ◽  
Dwi Ditha Emelia ◽  
Lutfan Lazuardi ◽  
Hari Kusnanto Josef

Abstract Background One strategy to resolve the increasing prevalence of T2DM is to identify and administer interventions to prediabetes patients. Risk assessment tools help detect diseases, by allowing screening to the high risk group. Machine learning is also used to help diagnosis and identification of prediabetes. This review aims to determine the diagnostic test accuracy of various machine learning algorithms for calculating prediabetes risk.Methods This protocol was written in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. The databases that will be used include PubMed, ProQuest and EBSCO restricted to January 1999 and May 2019 in English language only. Identification of articles will be done independently by two reviewers through the titles, the abstracts, and then the full-text-articles. Any disagreement will be resolved by consensus. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale will be used to measure the quality and potential of bias. Data extraction and content analysis will be performed systematically. Quantitative data will be visualized using a forest plot with the 95% Confidence Intervals. The diagnostic test outcome will be described by the summary receiver operating characteristic curve. Data will be analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 (RevMan 5.3) software package.Discussion We will obtain diagnostic accuracy of various machine learning algorithms for prediabetes risk estimation using this proposed systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic review registration: This protocol has been registered in the Prospective Registry of Systematic Review (PROSPERO) database. The registration number is CRD42021251242.


2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 1869-1879
Author(s):  
Yanhu Feng ◽  
Zhijian Han ◽  
Xiang Wang ◽  
Hao Chen ◽  
Yumin Li

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Lina Jakubauskiene ◽  
Matas Jakubauskas ◽  
Philipp Stiegler ◽  
Bettina Leber ◽  
Peter Schemmer ◽  
...  

<b><i>Background:</i></b> In recent decades, liver transplantation (LTx) has increased the survival and quality of life of patients with end-stage organ failure. Unfortunately, LTx is limited due to the shortage of donors. A lot of effort is put into finding new ways to reduce ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) in liver grafts to increase the number of suitable organs procured from expanded-criteria donors (ECD). The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature reporting LTx outcomes when using ischemic preconditioning (IPC) or remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) to reduce IRI in liver grafts. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A literature search was performed in the MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases. The following combination was used: “Liver” OR “Liver Transplantation” AND “Ischemic preconditioning” OR “occlusion” OR “clamping” OR “Pringle.” The following outcome data were retrieved: the rates of graft primary nonfunction (PNF), retransplantation, graft loss, and mortality; stay in hospital and the intensive care unit; and postoperative serum liver damage parameters. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The initial search retrieved 4,522 potentially relevant studies. After evaluating 17 full-text articles, a total of 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included (7 IPC and 2 RIPC studies) in the qualitative synthesis; the meta-analysis was only performed on the data from the IPC studies. RIPC studies had considerable methodological differences. The meta-analysis revealed the beneficial effect of IPC when comparing postoperative aspartate aminotransferase (AST) corresponding to a statistically lower mortality rate in the IPC group (odds ratio [OR] 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27–0.98; <i>p</i> = 0.04). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> IPC lowers postoperative AST levels and reduces the mortality rate; however, data on the benefits of RIPC are lacking.


2020 ◽  
Vol 163 (3) ◽  
pp. 428-443
Author(s):  
Usman Khan ◽  
Jake MacPherson ◽  
Michael Bezuhly ◽  
Paul Hong

Objective To compare the effectiveness of conventional (CF), laser (LF), and Z-plasty (ZF) frenotomies for the treatment of ankyloglossia in the pediatric population. Data Sources A comprehensive search of PUBMED, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases was performed. Review Methods Relevant articles were independently assessed by 2 reviewers according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Results Thirty-five articles assessing CF (27 articles), LF (4 articles), ZF (3 articles), and/or rhomboid plasty frenotomy (1 article) were included. A high level of outcome heterogeneity prevented pooling of data. All 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were of low quality. Both CF (5 articles with 589 patients) and LF (2 articles with 78 patients) were independently shown to reduce maternal nipple pain on a visual analog or numeric rating scale. There were reports of improvement with breastfeeding outcomes as assessed on validated assessment tools for 88% (7/8) of CF articles (588 patients) and 2 LF articles (78 patients). ZF improved breastfeeding outcomes on subjective maternal reports (1 article with 18 infants) only. One RCT with a high risk of bias concluded greater speech articulation improvements with ZF compared to CF. Only minor adverse events were reported for all frenotomy techniques. Conclusions Current literature does not demonstrate a clear advantage for one frenotomy technique when managing children with ankyloglossia. Recommendations for future research are provided to overcome the methodological shortcomings in the literature. We conclude that all frenotomy techniques are safe and effective for treating symptomatic ankyloglossia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document