Diagnostic accuracy of EUS compared with MRCP in detecting choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy in head-to-head studies

2017 ◽  
Vol 86 (6) ◽  
pp. 986-993 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaser Meeralam ◽  
Khalil Al-Shammari ◽  
Mohammad Yaghoobi
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy

scholarly journals The diagnostic accuracy of isothermal nucleic acid point-of-care tests for human coronaviruses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pakpoom Subsoontorn ◽  
Manupat Lohitnavy ◽  
Chuenjid Kongkaew
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Isothermal Amplification ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Index Test ◽  
Point Of Care Tests

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.

scholarly journals Use of Smartphones to Detect Diabetic Retinopathy: Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Choon Han Tan ◽  
Bhone Myint Kyaw ◽  
Helen Smith ◽  
Colin S Tan ◽  
Lorainne Tudor Car
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Fundus Photography ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Reference Standard

BACKGROUND Diabetic retinopathy (DR), a common complication of diabetes mellitus, is the leading cause of impaired vision in adults worldwide. Smartphone ophthalmoscopy involves using a smartphone camera for digital retinal imaging. Utilizing smartphones to detect DR is potentially more affordable, accessible, and easier to use than conventional methods. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of various smartphone ophthalmoscopy approaches for detecting DR in diabetic patients. METHODS We performed an electronic search on the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for literature published from January 2000 to November 2018. We included studies involving diabetic patients, which compared the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone ophthalmoscopy for detecting DR to an accurate or commonly employed reference standard, such as indirect ophthalmoscopy, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and tabletop fundus photography. Two reviewers independently screened studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2 tool, with disagreements resolved via consensus. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled using the random effects model. A summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was constructed. This review is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies guidelines. RESULTS In all, nine studies involving 1430 participants were included. Most studies were of high quality, except one study with limited applicability because of its reference standard. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for detecting any DR was 87% (95% CI 74%-94%) and 94% (95% CI 81%-98%); mild nonproliferative DR (NPDR) was 39% (95% CI 10%-79%) and 95% (95% CI 91%-98%); moderate NPDR was 71% (95% CI 57%-81%) and 95% (95% CI 88%-98%); severe NPDR was 80% (95% CI 49%-94%) and 97% (95% CI 88%-99%); proliferative DR (PDR) was 92% (95% CI 79%-97%) and 99% (95% CI 96%-99%); diabetic macular edema was 79% (95% CI 63%-89%) and 93% (95% CI 82%-97%); and referral-warranted DR was 91% (95% CI 86%-94%) and 89% (95% CI 56%-98%). The area under SROC curve ranged from 0.879 to 0.979. The diagnostic odds ratio ranged from 11.3 to 1225. CONCLUSIONS We found heterogeneous evidence showing that smartphone ophthalmoscopy performs well in detecting DR. The diagnostic accuracy for PDR was highest. Future studies should standardize reference criteria and classification criteria and evaluate other available forms of smartphone ophthalmoscopy in primary care settings.

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoë Tieges ◽  
Alasdair M J Maclullich ◽  
Atul Anand ◽  
Claire Brookes ◽  
Marica Cassarino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Cochrane Central Register

Abstract Objective Detection of delirium in hospitalised older adults is recommended in national and international guidelines. The 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT) is a short (<2 minutes) instrument for delirium detection that is used internationally as a standard tool in clinical practice. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from 2011 (year of 4AT release on the website www.the4AT.com) until 21 December 2019. Inclusion criteria were: older adults (≥65 years); diagnostic accuracy study of the 4AT index test when compared to delirium reference standard (standard diagnostic criteria or validated tool). Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated from a bivariate random effects model. Results Seventeen studies (3,702 observations) were included. Settings were acute medicine, surgery, a care home and the emergency department. Three studies assessed performance of the 4AT in stroke. The overall prevalence of delirium was 24.2% (95% CI 17.8–32.1%; range 10.5–61.9%). The pooled sensitivity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.80–0.93) and the pooled specificity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.82–0.92). Excluding the stroke studies, the pooled sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.77–0.92) and the pooled specificity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.83–0.93). The methodological quality of studies varied but was moderate to good overall. Conclusions The 4AT shows good diagnostic test accuracy for delirium in the 17 available studies. These findings support its use in routine clinical practice in delirium detection. PROSPERO Registration number CRD42019133702.

The diagnostic accuracy of X-ray arthrography for triangular fibrocartilaginous complex injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (9) ◽  
pp. 879-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. O. Smith ◽  
B. T. Drew ◽  
A. P. Toms ◽  
A. J. Chojnowski
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Injection Technique ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Index Test ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
X Ray

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy of X-ray arthrography in the detection of TFCC tear. Both published and unpublished databases were searched from their inception to August 2010. All studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of X-ray arthrography (index test) to arthroscopy (reference standard) for patients with suspected TFCC tears were included in this review. Twelve studies assessing 430 patients (430 wrists) satisfied the eligibility criteria and were included. X-ray arthrography presented with a pooled sensitivity of 76.2% and specificity of 92.5% for the detection of complete TFCC tear. The triple-compartment injection X-ray arthrography was superior to the single-compartment injection technique. To conclude, the diagnostic test accuracy of X-ray arthrography is limited. Neither the single- nor the triple-compartment injection arthrography method is acceptable, given their reported low sensitivities. Further evaluation of the diagnostic test accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Arthrography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging is therefore warranted.

scholarly journals Concordance Rate between HER2 Immunohistochemistry and in Situ Hybridization in Gastric Carcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jung-Soo Pyo ◽  
Jin Hee Sohn ◽  
Woo Ho Kim
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
In Situ Hybridization ◽  
Gastric Carcinoma ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Significant Difference

Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) in gastric carcinoma (GC) through a systematic review, meta-analysis and diagnostic test accuracy review. Method The current study included 12,679 GC cases and 181 subsets in 45 eligible studies. We performed concordance analysis between HER2 IHC and in situ hybridization (ISH) in GC. Diagnostic test accuracy was analyzed and the area under the curve (AUC) on the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was calculated. Results HER2 amplification rates were 3.0%, 31.8%, and 93.0% in the IHC score 0/1+, 2+, and 3+ groups, respectively. The concordance rates between IHC and ISH were 0.969 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.962-0.975), 0.393 (95% CI 0.331-0.458) and 0.915 (95% CI 0.882-0.939) in the HER2 IHC score 0/1+, 2+, and 3+ groups, respectively. For all the HER2 IHC score groups, the positive rates were higher in the silver ISH (SISH) subgroup than in the fluorescence ISH (FISH) and chromogenic ISH (CISH) subgroups. In diagnostic test accuracy review, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.86 (95% CI 0.84-0.87) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.90-0.91). The AUC on SROC curve was 0.958. However, there was no significant difference in the values of AUC between the ISH methods. Conclusions Our results showed that HER2 IHC was well concordant with ISH in HER2 IHC score 0/1+ or 3+. Although this meta-analysis showed higher diagnostic accuracy of HER2 IHC, more detailed criteria for HER2 IHC score 2+ cases will be required to predict HER2 status.

scholarly journals Use of Smartphones to Detect Diabetic Retinopathy: Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies

10.2196/16658 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. e16658
Author(s):  
Choon Han Tan ◽  
Bhone Myint Kyaw ◽  
Helen Smith ◽  
Colin S Tan ◽  
Lorainne Tudor Car
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Fundus Photography ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Reference Standard

Background Diabetic retinopathy (DR), a common complication of diabetes mellitus, is the leading cause of impaired vision in adults worldwide. Smartphone ophthalmoscopy involves using a smartphone camera for digital retinal imaging. Utilizing smartphones to detect DR is potentially more affordable, accessible, and easier to use than conventional methods. Objective This study aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of various smartphone ophthalmoscopy approaches for detecting DR in diabetic patients. Methods We performed an electronic search on the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for literature published from January 2000 to November 2018. We included studies involving diabetic patients, which compared the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone ophthalmoscopy for detecting DR to an accurate or commonly employed reference standard, such as indirect ophthalmoscopy, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and tabletop fundus photography. Two reviewers independently screened studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2 tool, with disagreements resolved via consensus. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled using the random effects model. A summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was constructed. This review is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies guidelines. Results In all, nine studies involving 1430 participants were included. Most studies were of high quality, except one study with limited applicability because of its reference standard. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for detecting any DR was 87% (95% CI 74%-94%) and 94% (95% CI 81%-98%); mild nonproliferative DR (NPDR) was 39% (95% CI 10%-79%) and 95% (95% CI 91%-98%); moderate NPDR was 71% (95% CI 57%-81%) and 95% (95% CI 88%-98%); severe NPDR was 80% (95% CI 49%-94%) and 97% (95% CI 88%-99%); proliferative DR (PDR) was 92% (95% CI 79%-97%) and 99% (95% CI 96%-99%); diabetic macular edema was 79% (95% CI 63%-89%) and 93% (95% CI 82%-97%); and referral-warranted DR was 91% (95% CI 86%-94%) and 89% (95% CI 56%-98%). The area under SROC curve ranged from 0.879 to 0.979. The diagnostic odds ratio ranged from 11.3 to 1225. Conclusions We found heterogeneous evidence showing that smartphone ophthalmoscopy performs well in detecting DR. The diagnostic accuracy for PDR was highest. Future studies should standardize reference criteria and classification criteria and evaluate other available forms of smartphone ophthalmoscopy in primary care settings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document