Kussmaul’s sign for the diagnosis of right ventricular myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies

AbstractMany recent studies reported coronavirus point-of-care tests (POCTs) based on isothermal amplification. However, the performances of these tests have not been systematically evaluated. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy was used as a guideline for conducting this systematic review. We searched peer-reviewed and preprint articles in PubMed, BioRxiv and MedRxiv up to 28 September 2020 to identify studies that provide data to calculate sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was applied for assessing quality of included studies and Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) was followed for reporting. We included 81 studies from 65 research articles on POCTs of SARS, MERS and COVID-19. Most studies had high risk of patient selection and index test bias but low risk in other domains. Diagnostic specificities were high (> 0.95) for included studies while sensitivities varied depending on type of assays and sample used. Most studies (n = 51) used reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) to diagnose coronaviruses. RT-LAMP of RNA purified from COVID-19 patient samples had pooled sensitivity at 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90–0.96). RT-LAMP of crude samples had substantially lower sensitivity at 0.78 (95% CI: 0.65–0.87). Abbott ID Now performance was similar to RT-LAMP of crude samples. Diagnostic performances by CRISPR and RT-LAMP on purified RNA were similar. Other diagnostic platforms including RT- recombinase assisted amplification (RT-RAA) and SAMBA-II also offered high sensitivity (> 0.95). Future studies should focus on the use of un-bias patient cohorts, double-blinded index test and detection assays that do not require RNA extraction.

Download Full-text

Diagnostic Test Accuracy of the 4AT for Delirium Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph17207515 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 17 (20) ◽

pp. 7515 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Eunhye Jeong ◽

Jinkyung Park ◽

Juneyoung Lee

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Diagnostic Test ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽

Test Accuracy ◽

Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic ◽

Bivariate Model ◽

Data Synthesis

Under-recognition of delirium is an international problem. For the early detection of delirium, a feasible and valid screening tool for healthcare professionals is needed. This study aimed to present a scientific reason for using the 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT) through a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the diagnostic test accuracy. We systematically searched articles in the EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases and selected relevant articles on the basis of the predefined inclusion criteria. The quality of the included articles was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. We estimated the pooled values of diagnostic test accuracy by employing the bivariate model and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model in data synthesis. A total of 3729 patients of 13 studies were included in the analysis. The pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity of the 4AT were 81.5% (95% confidence interval: 70.7%, 89.0%) and 87.5% (79.5%, 92.7%), respectively. Given the 4AT’s evidence of accuracy and practicality, we suggest healthcare professionals to utilize this tool for routine screening of delirium. However, for detecting delirium in the dementia population, further work is required to evaluate the 4AT with other cut-off points or scoring methods in order for it to be more sensitive and specific.

Download Full-text

Diagnostic test accuracy of droplet digital PCR for the detection of EGFR mutation (T790M) in plasma: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinica Chimica Acta ◽

10.1016/j.cca.2019.11.023 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 503 ◽

pp. 190-196 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Yingyin Liao ◽

Yuan Chen ◽

Xiaoxia Kou ◽

Yi Xiao ◽

Junkai Ye ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Diagnostic Test ◽

Egfr Mutation ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Digital Pcr ◽

Droplet Digital Pcr ◽

Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽

Test Accuracy

Download Full-text