scholarly journals Ultrasonography for the diagnosis of extra-cranial carotid occlusion – diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis

VASA ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-204
Author(s):  
Djamila M. Rojoa ◽  
Ahmad Q. D. Lodhi ◽  
Nikos Kontopodis ◽  
Christos V. Ioannou ◽  
Nicos Labropoulos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Carotid Occlusion ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Correct Identification ◽  
Reference Standard

Summary: Background: The correct diagnosis of internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion is crucial as it limits unnecessary intervention, whereas correct identification of patients with severe ICA stenosis is paramount in decision making and selecting patients who would benefit from intervention. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of ultrasonography (US) in the diagnosis of ICA occlusion. Methods: We conducted a systematic review in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) of diagnostic test accuracy studies. We interrogated electronic bibliographic sources using a combination of free text and thesaurus terms to identify studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of US in ICA occlusion. We used a mixed-effects logistic regression bivariate model to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity. We developed hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves. Results: We identified 23 studies reporting a total of 5,675 arteries of which 722 were proven to be occluded by the reference standard. The reference standard was digital subtraction or cerebral angiography in all but two studies, which used surgery to ascertain a carotid occlusion. The pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity were 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio was 3,846.15 (95% CI 1,375.74 to 10,752.65). The positive and negative likelihood ratio were 114.71 (95% CI 58.84 to 223.63) and 0.03 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.06), respectively. Conclusions: US is a reliable and accurate method in diagnosing ICA occlusion. US can be used as a screening tool with cross-sectional imaging being reserved for ambiguous cases.

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i7-i11
Author(s):  
Z Tieges ◽  
A M J MacLullich ◽  
A Anand ◽  
M Cassaroni ◽  
M O'Connor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Cochrane Central Register

Abstract Introduction Detection of delirium in hospitalised older adults is recommended in national and international guidelines. The 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT; www.the4AT.com) is a short (<2 min) 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 the following electronic databases through Ovid: MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. Additional databases were searched: CINAHL (EBSCOhost), clinicaltrials.gov and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 2011 (4AT publication) until 21 December 2019. Inclusion criteria: older adults (≥65) across any setting of care except critical care; validation study of the 4AT against a delirium reference standard (standard diagnostic criteria or validated tool). Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and papers and performed the data extraction. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated from a bivariate random effects model. Results 17 studies (n = 3,701 observations) were included. Various settings including acute medicine, surgery, stroke wards and the emergency department were represented. 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). The methodological quality of studies was mostly good. Conclusions The 4AT is now supported by a substantial evidence base comparable to other well-studied tools such as the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). The strong pooled sensitivity and specificity findings for the 4AT in this meta-analysis along with its brevity and lack of need for specific training provide support for its use as an effective assessment tool for delirium.

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.

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.

We need to do better: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of restless legs syndrome screening instruments

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 101461
Author(s):  
Stephany Fulda ◽  
Richard P. Allen ◽  
Christopher J. Earley ◽  
Birgit Högl ◽  
Diego Garcia-Borreguero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Restless Legs Syndrome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Screening Instruments ◽  
Restless Legs
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document