OP136 Full Texts Versus Conference Abstract Data: How Does The Message Change?

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 50-51
Author(s):  
Jo Varley-Campbell ◽  
Chris Cooper ◽  
Helen Coelho ◽  
Sophie Dodman ◽  
Max Barnish ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Preterm Labor ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Conference Abstract ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Abstract Data ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Accuracy Data

Introduction:High quality evidence for test accuracy can be scarce. We assessed the test accuracy of two tests (Actim Partus and PartoSure) for the prediction of preterm birth. Twenty published full-text papers were included whilst conference abstracts were excluded. Since systematic reviews of diagnostic tests on other topics may need to rely on data from conference abstracts, we test whether the findings of our review would change with conference abstracts included.Methods:Conference citations previously excluded (n=108) were re-screened for inclusion using the following criteria: i) the diagnostic test was Actim Partus or PartoSure ii) test accuracy data of preterm delivery within seven days was reported iii) the population was women with signs/symptoms of preterm labor with intact membranes. Relevant test accuracy data were extracted and used to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for each test were run using data from full-text papers and conference abstracts combined. These values were compared with the pooled sensitivities and specificities produced for the systematic review using full-text papers only.Results:Preliminary pooled sensitivities of the sixteen full-text Actim Partus studies and sixteen full-texts and two abstracts were 0.77 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68, 0.83) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.69, 0.83) respectively whilst pooled specificities were 0.81 (95% CI 0.76, 0.85).and 0.80 (95% CI 0.75, 0.84) respectively. Preliminary, pooled sensitivities of the four full-text PartoSure studies and four full-texts and three abstracts were 0.83 (95% CI 0.61, 0.94) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.65, 0.92), respectively, whilst pooled specificities were 0.95 (95% CI 0.89, 0.98) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.94, 0.97), respectively.Conclusions:Our findings suggest that the test accuracy results would not alter substantially with the inclusion of conference abstracts. However, work is ongoing to investigate how the assessment of heterogeneity and risk of bias across studies would alter given the difficulties associated with limited methodological reporting from conference abstracts.

scholarly journals Differentiating PSP from MSA using MR planimetric measurements: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beatrice Heim ◽  
Florian Krismer ◽  
Klaus Seppi
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Index Test ◽  
Study Quality ◽  
Parkinsonian Syndromes ◽  
Quantitative Mr ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Planimetric Measurements

AbstractDifferential diagnosis of parkinsonian syndromes is considered one of the most challenging in neurology. Quantitative MR planimetric measurements were reported to discriminate between progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and non-PSP-parkinsonism. Several studies have used midbrain to pons ratio (M/P) and the Magnetic Resonance Parkinsonism Index (MRPI) in distinguishing PSP patients from those with Parkinson's disease. The current meta-analysis aimed to compare the performance of these measures in discriminating PSP from multiple system atrophy (MSA). A systematic MEDLINE review identified 59 out of 2984 studies allowing a calculation of sensitivity and specificity using the MRPI or M/P. Meta-analyses of results were carried out using random effects modelling. To assess study quality and risk of bias, the QUADAS-2 tool was used. Eight studies were suitable for analysis. The meta‐analysis showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity for the MRPI of PSP versus MSA of 79.2% (95% CI 72.7–84.4%) and 91.2% (95% CI 79.5–96.5%), and 84.1% (95% CI 77.2–89.2%) and 89.2% (95% CI 81.8–93.8%), respectively, for the M/P. The QUADAS-2 toolbox revealed a high risk of bias regarding the methodological quality of patient selection and index test, as all patients were seen in a specialized outpatient department without avoiding case control design and no predefined threshold was given regarding MRPI or M/P cut-offs. Planimetric brainstem measurements, in special the MRPI and M/P, yield high diagnostic accuracy for the discrimination of PSP from MSA. However, there is an urgent need for well-designed, prospective validation studies to ameliorate the concerns regarding the risk of bias.

scholarly journals Diagnostic tools for neurosyphilis: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustavo Henrique Pereira Boog ◽  
João Vitor Ziroldo Lopes ◽  
João Vitor Mahler ◽  
Marina Solti ◽  
Lucas Tokio Kawahara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New Technologies ◽  
Clinical Suspicion ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
Diagnostic Tools ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Cerebrospinal Fluid Analysis ◽  
Evaluation Methodologies ◽  
Fluid Analysis ◽  
Criteria For Diagnosis

Abstract Purpose Increasing incidences of syphilis highlight the preoccupation with the occurrence of neurosyphilis. This study aimed to understand the current diagnostic tools and their performance to detect neurosyphilis, including new technologies and the variety of existing methods. Methods We searched databases to select articles that reported neurosyphilis diagnostic methods and assessed their accuracy, presenting sensitivity and specificity values. Information was synthesized in tables. The risk of bias was examined using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy recommendations. Results Fourteen studies were included. The main finding was a remarkable diversity of tests, which had varied purposes, techniques, and evaluation methodologies. There was no uniform criterion or gold standard to define neurosyphilis. The current basis for its diagnosis is clinical suspicion and cerebrospinal fluid analysis. There are new promising tests such as PCR tests and chemokine measurement assays. Conclusions The diagnosis of neurosyphilis is still a challenge, despite the variety of existing and developing tests. We believe that the multiplicity of reference standards adopted as criteria for diagnosis reveals the imprecision of the current definitions of neurosyphilis. An important next step for the scientific community is to create a universally accepted diagnostic definition for this disease.

scholarly journals Deep learning for cephalometric landmark detection: systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Falk Schwendicke ◽  
Akhilanand Chaurasia ◽  
Lubaina Arsiwala ◽  
Jae-Hong Lee ◽  
Karim Elhennawy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Deep Learning ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Accuracy ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Automated Detection ◽  
Reference Test ◽  
Landmark Detection ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
Using Data

Abstract Objectives Deep learning (DL) has been increasingly employed for automated landmark detection, e.g., for cephalometric purposes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the accuracy and underlying evidence for DL for cephalometric landmark detection on 2-D and 3-D radiographs. Methods Diagnostic accuracy studies published in 2015-2020 in Medline/Embase/IEEE/arXiv and employing DL for cephalometric landmark detection were identified and extracted by two independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis, subgroup, and meta-regression were performed, and study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. The review was registered (PROSPERO no. 227498). Data From 321 identified records, 19 studies (published 2017–2020), all employing convolutional neural networks, mainly on 2-D lateral radiographs (n=15), using data from publicly available datasets (n=12) and testing the detection of a mean of 30 (SD: 25; range.: 7–93) landmarks, were included. The reference test was established by two experts (n=11), 1 expert (n=4), 3 experts (n=3), and a set of annotators (n=1). Risk of bias was high, and applicability concerns were detected for most studies, mainly regarding the data selection and reference test conduct. Landmark prediction error centered around a 2-mm error threshold (mean; 95% confidence interval: (–0.581; 95 CI: –1.264 to 0.102 mm)). The proportion of landmarks detected within this 2-mm threshold was 0.799 (0.770 to 0.824). Conclusions DL shows relatively high accuracy for detecting landmarks on cephalometric imagery. The overall body of evidence is consistent but suffers from high risk of bias. Demonstrating robustness and generalizability of DL for landmark detection is needed. Clinical significance Existing DL models show consistent and largely high accuracy for automated detection of cephalometric landmarks. The majority of studies so far focused on 2-D imagery; data on 3-D imagery are sparse, but promising. Future studies should focus on demonstrating generalizability, robustness, and clinical usefulness of DL for this objective.

scholarly journals Deep learning for pulmonary embolism detection on computed tomography pulmonary angiogram: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shelly Soffer ◽  
Eyal Klang ◽  
Orit Shimon ◽  
Yiftach Barash ◽  
Noa Cahan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Deep Learning ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Learning Models ◽  
Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic ◽  
Pulmonary Angiogram

AbstractComputed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is the gold standard for pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis. However, this diagnosis is susceptible to misdiagnosis. In this study, we aimed to perform a systematic review of current literature applying deep learning for the diagnosis of PE on CTPA. MEDLINE/PUBMED were searched for studies that reported on the accuracy of deep learning algorithms for PE on CTPA. The risk of bias was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 tool. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted. Seven studies met our inclusion criteria. A total of 36,847 CTPA studies were analyzed. All studies were retrospective. Five studies provided enough data to calculate summary estimates. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for PE detection were 0.88 (95% CI 0.803–0.927) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.756–0.924), respectively. Most studies had a high risk of bias. Our study suggests that deep learning models can detect PE on CTPA with satisfactory sensitivity and an acceptable number of false positive cases. Yet, these are only preliminary retrospective works, indicating the need for future research to determine the clinical impact of automated PE detection on patient care. Deep learning models are gradually being implemented in hospital systems, and it is important to understand the strengths and limitations of these algorithms.

scholarly journals Observed Differences in Diagnostic Test Accuracy between Patient Subgroups: Is It Real or Due to Reference Standard Misclassification?

2007 ◽  
Vol 53 (10) ◽  
pp. 1725-1729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corné Biesheuvel ◽  
Les Irwig ◽  
Patrick Bossuyt
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Target Condition ◽  
Test Sensitivity ◽  
The Past ◽  
Patient Subgroups

Abstract Before a new test is introduced in clinical practice, its accuracy should be assessed. In the past decade, researchers have put an increased emphasis on exploring differences in test sensitivity and specificity between patient subgroups. If the reference standard is imperfect and the prevalence of the target condition differs among subgroups, apparent differences in test sensitivity and specificity between subgroups may be caused by reference standard misclassification. We provide guidance on how to determine whether observed differences may be explained by reference standard misclassification. Such misclassification may be ascertained by examining how the apparent sensitivity and specificity change with the prevalence of the target condition in the subgroups.

scholarly journals Psoriatic arthritis screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Rheumatology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 692-707 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Iragorri ◽  
Glen Hazlewood ◽  
Braden Manns ◽  
Vishva Danthurebandara ◽  
Eldon Spackman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Screening Questionnaire ◽  
Psa Screening ◽  
Early Psoriatic Arthritis

Abstract Objective To systematically review the accuracy and characteristics of different questionnaire-based PsA screening tools. Methods A systematic review of MEDLINE, Excerpta Medical Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science was conducted to identify studies that evaluated the accuracy of self-administered PsA screening tools for patients with psoriasis. A bivariate meta-analysis was used to pool screening tool-specific accuracy estimates (sensitivity and specificity). Heterogeneity of the diagnostic odds ratio was evaluated through meta-regression. All full-text records were assessed for risk of bias with the QUADAS 2 tool. Results A total of 2280 references were identified and 130 records were assessed for full-text review, of which 42 were included for synthesis. Of these, 27 were included in quantitative syntheses. Of the records, 37% had an overall low risk of bias. Fourteen different screening tools and 104 separate accuracy estimates were identified. Pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated for the Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation (cut-off = 44), Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation (47), Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screening (8), Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (3) and Early Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire (3). The Early Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire reported the highest sensitivity and specificity (0.85 each). The I2 for the diagnostic odds ratios varied between 76 and 90.1%. Meta-regressions were conducted, in which the age, risk of bias for patient selection and the screening tool accounted for some of the observed heterogeneity. Conclusions Questionnaire-based tools have moderate accuracy to identify PsA among psoriasis patients. The Early Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire appears to have slightly better accuracy compared with the Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screening, Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool and Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation. An economic evaluation could model the uncertainty and estimate the cost-effectiveness of PsA screening programs that use different tools.

scholarly journals The Use of Green Coffee Extract as a Weight Loss Supplement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Igho Onakpoya ◽  
Rohini Terry ◽  
Edzard Ernst
Keyword(s):  
Weight Loss ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Green Coffee ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Using Data

The purpose of this paper is to assess the efficacy of green coffee extract (GCE) as a weight loss supplement, using data from human clinical trials. Electronic and nonelectronic searches were conducted to identify relevant articles, with no restrictions in time or language. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Five eligible trials were identified, and three of these were included. All studies were associated with a high risk of bias. The meta-analytic result reveals a significant difference in body weight in GCE compared with placebo (mean difference: kg; 95%CI: , ). The magnitude of the effect is moderate, and there is significant heterogeneity amongst the studies. It is concluded that the results from these trials are promising, but the studies are all of poor methodological quality. More rigorous trials are needed to assess the usefulness of GCE as a weight loss tool.

scholarly journals Rapid diagnostic test for antenatal syphilis screening in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e018132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Phang Romero Casas ◽  
Marrissa Martyn-St James ◽  
Jean Hamilton ◽  
Daniel S Marinho ◽  
Rodolfo Castro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Antenatal Clinics

ObjectivesTo undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the test performance including sensitivity and specificity of rapid immunochromatographic syphilis (ICS) point-of-care (POC) tests at antenatal clinics compared with reference standard tests (non-treponemal (TP) and TP tests) for active syphilis in pregnant women.MethodsFive electronic databases were searched (PubMed, EMBASE, CRD, Cochrane Library and LILACS) to March 2016 for diagnostic accuracy studies of ICS test and standard reference tests for syphilis in pregnant women. Methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies). A bivariate meta-analysis was undertaken to generate pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters. Results were presented using a coupled forest plot of sensitivity and specificity and a scatter plot.ResultsThe methodological quality of the five included studies with regards to risk of bias and applicability concern judgements was either low or unclear. One study was judged as high risk of bias for patient selection due to exclusion of pregnant women with a previous history of syphilis, and one study was judged at high risk of bias for study flow and timing as not all patients were included in the analysis. Five studies contributed to the meta-analysis, providing a pooled sensitivity and specificity for ICS of 0.85 (95% CrI: 0.73 to 0.92) and 0.98 (95% CrI: 0.95 to 0.99), respectively.ConclusionsThis review and meta-analysis observed that rapid ICS POC tests have a high sensitivity and specificity when performed in pregnant women at antenatal clinics. However, the methodological quality of the existing evidence base should be taken into consideration when interpreting these results.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016036335.

scholarly journals Risk of bias and limits of reporting in diagnostic accuracy studies for commercial point-of-care tests for respiratory pathogens

2018 ◽  
Vol 146 (6) ◽  
pp. 747-756
Author(s):  
J.M. Hughes ◽  
C. Penney ◽  
S. Boyd ◽  
P. Daley
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Financial Impact ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Respiratory Pathogens ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Group A ◽  
Point Of Care Tests

AbstractCommercial point-of-care (POC) diagnostic tests for Group A Streptococcus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and influenza virus have large potential diagnostic and financial impact. Many published reports on test performance, often funded by diagnostics companies, are prone to bias. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD 2015) are a protocol to encourage accurate, transparent reporting. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool evaluates risk of bias and transportability of results. We used these tools to evaluate diagnostic test accuracy studies of POC studies for three respiratory pathogens. For the 96 studies analysed, compliance was <25% for 14/34 STARD 2015 standards, and 3/7 QUADAS-2 domains showed a high risk of bias. All reports lacked reporting of at least one criterion. These biases should be considered in the interpretation of study results.

scholarly journals Accuracy of Anti-GBM Antibodies in Diagnosing Anti-Glomerular Basement Membrane Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Akihiro Shiroshita ◽  
Yasuhiro Oda ◽  
Seiji Takenouchi ◽  
Noboru Hagino ◽  
Yuki Kataoka
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Basement Membrane ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Glomerular Basement Membrane ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Risk Of Bias

<b><i>Background:</i></b> The sensitivity and specificity of anti-glomerular basement membrane (GBM) antibodies have not been systematically analyzed. In this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of anti-GBM antibodies for anti-GBM disease. <b><i>Summary:</i></b> Potential studies were searched using MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform based on the index test and target condition. The inclusion criteria were prospective or retrospective cohort studies or case-control studies assessing the sensitivity and specificity of anti-GBM antibodies, and the reference standard was clinical diagnosis including biopsy results. The exclusion criteria were review articles, case reports, animal studies, and in vitro studies. Quality assessment was conducted based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. The pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. The overall quality was evaluated using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Six studies (1,691 patients) and 11 index tests were included in our systematic review. A high risk of bias and concerns regarding the applicability of patient selection were noted because of the case-control design in 67% of the included studies. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 93% (95% CI: 84–97%) and 97% (95% CI: 94–99%), respectively. The certainty of evidence was low because of the high risk of bias and indirectness. <b><i>Key Messages:</i></b> Anti-GBM antibodies may exhibit high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of anti-GBM disease. Further cohort studies are needed to confirm their precise diagnostic accuracy and compare diagnostic accuracies among different immunoassays.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document