scholarly journals Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis: An Analysis of Systematic Reviews

2021 ◽  
pp. 002203452110427
Author(s):  
T. Walsh ◽  
R. Macey ◽  
D. Ricketts ◽  
A. Carrasco Labra ◽  
H. Worthington ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Prediction Intervals ◽  
Tooth Surface ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Operative Exploration ◽  
Detection And Diagnosis

Detection and diagnosis of caries—typically undertaken through a visual-tactile examination, often with supporting radiographic investigations—is commonly regarded as being broadly effective at detecting caries that has progressed into dentine and reached a threshold where restoration is necessary. With earlier detection comes an opportunity to stabilize disease or even remineralize the tooth surface, maximizing retention of tooth tissue and preventing a lifelong cycle of restoration. We undertook a formal comparative analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of different technologies to detect and inform the diagnosis of early caries using published Cochrane systematic reviews. Forming the basis of our comparative analysis were 5 Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews evaluating fluorescence, visual or visual-tactile classification systems, imaging, transillumination and optical coherence tomography, and electrical conductance or impedance technologies. Acceptable reference standards included histology, operative exploration, or enhanced visual assessment (with or without tooth separation) as appropriate. We conducted 2 analyses based on study design: a fully within-study, within-person analysis and a network meta-analysis based on direct and indirect comparisons. Nineteen studies provided data for the fully within-person analysis and 64 studies for the network meta-analysis. Of the 5 technologies evaluated, the greatest pairwise differences were observed in summary sensitivity points for imaging and all other technologies, but summary specificity points were broadly similar. For both analyses, the wide 95% prediction intervals indicated the uncertainty of future diagnostic accuracy across all technologies. The certainty of evidence was low, downgraded for study limitations, inconsistency, and indirectness. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy for most technologies indicate that the degree of certitude with which a decision is made regarding the presence or absence of disease may be enhanced with the use of such devices. However, given the broad prediction intervals, it is challenging to predict their accuracy in any future “real world” context.

scholarly journals Systematic review protocol to assess artificial intelligence diagnostic accuracy performance in detecting acute ischaemic stroke and large-vessel occlusions on CT and MR medical imaging

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e043665
Author(s):  
Srinivasa Rao Kundeti ◽  
Manikanda Krishnan Vaidyanathan ◽  
Bharath Shivashankar ◽  
Sankar Prasad Gorthi
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Ischaemic Stroke ◽  
Study Protocol ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Acute Ischaemic Stroke ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Large Vessel ◽  
Sufficient Data

IntroductionThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) to support the diagnosis of acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) could improve patient outcomes and facilitate accurate tissue and vessel assessment. However, the evidence in published AI studies is inadequate and difficult to interpret which reduces the accountability of the diagnostic results in clinical settings. This study protocol describes a rigorous systematic review of the accuracy of AI in the diagnosis of AIS and detection of large-vessel occlusions (LVOs).Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of AI models for diagnosing AIS and detecting LVOs. We will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols guidelines. Literature searches will be conducted in eight databases. For data screening and extraction, two reviewers will use a modified Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies checklist. We will assess the included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies guidelines. We will conduct a meta-analysis if sufficient data are available. We will use hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves to estimate the summary operating points, including the pooled sensitivity and specificity, with 95% CIs, if pooling is appropriate. Furthermore, if sufficient data are available, we will use Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations profiler software to summarise the main findings of the systematic review, as a summary of results.Ethics and disseminationThere are no ethical considerations associated with this study protocol, as the systematic review focuses on the examination of secondary data. The systematic review results will be used to report on the accuracy, completeness and standard procedures of the included studies. We will disseminate our findings by publishing our analysis in a peer-reviewed journal and, if required, we will communicate with the stakeholders of the studies and bibliographic databases.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020179652.

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 Imaging Modalities for Diagnosis of Deep Pelvic Endometriosis: Comparison between Trans-Vaginal Sonography, Rectal Endoscopy Sonography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. A Head-to-Head Meta-Analysis

Diagnostics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Noventa ◽  
Marco Scioscia ◽  
Michele Schincariol ◽  
Francesco Cavallin ◽  
Giovanni Pontrelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Imaging Modalities ◽  
Transvaginal Sonography ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Pelvic Endometriosis ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Deep Pelvic Endometriosis

Objectives: A meta-analysis, with a head-to-head approach, was carried out to compare the three most common techniques for a deep pelvic endometriosis (DPE) diagnosis. We focused on: transvaginal-sonography (TVS), magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI), and rectal-endoscopy-sonography (RES). Methods: Electronic databases were searched from their inception until December 2018. All prospective and well-defined retrospective studies carried out in tertiary referral centers were considered. This review was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Synthesizing Evidence from Diagnostic Accuracy Tests (SEDATE) guidelines. We considered only papers in which at least two imaging modalities were compared in the same set of patients (head-to-head approach). Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) was performed separately for each location of interest. Bivariate or univariate approach has been applied when appropriate. We analyze the DTA of TVS vs. MRI, TVS vs. RES, and MRI vs. RES. Results: Our meta-analysis (17 studies included) showed high-to-moderate DTA of TVS for all endometriosis locations (apart from recto-vaginal septum (RVS)) that were not statistically different from MRI and RES for those localized in the posterior compartment. RES results were more accurate than MRI for RS lesions but less accurate than TVS for other pelvic locations, except for RVS. Conclusions: All approaches provide good accuracy with specific strong points. Ultrasonography demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy not inferior to MRI and RES; therefore, it must be considered the primary approach for DPE diagnosis. MRI has to be considered as a valuable approach in settings where highly skilled sonographers are not available. Keypoints: (1) We confirmed the non-inferiority of TVS compared to MRI and RES for the diagnosis of specific pelvic anatomic location of endometriosis lesions. (2) Ultrasonography could be considered the primary approach for DPE diagnosis (less invasive than RES and less expensive than MRI). (3) MRI has to be considered as a valuable approach in settings where skilled sonographers are not available.

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of refractometer and Brix refractometer to assess failure of passive transfer in calves: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Buczinski ◽  
G. Fecteau ◽  
M. Chigerwe ◽  
J. M. Vandeweerd
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Passive Transfer ◽  
Standard Test ◽  
Passive Immunity ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
The Impact

AbstractCalves are highly dependent of colostrum (and antibody) intake because they are born agammaglobulinemic. The transfer of passive immunity in calves can be assessed directly by dosing immunoglobulin G (IgG) or by refractometry or Brix refractometry. The latter are easier to perform routinely in the field. This paper presents a protocol for a systematic review meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of refractometry or Brix refractometry versus dosage of IgG as a reference standard test. With this review protocol we aim to be able to report refractometer and Brix refractometer accuracy in terms of sensitivity and specificity as well as to quantify the impact of any study characteristic on test accuracy.

scholarly journals Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of five common tumour biomarkers and CA19-9 for pancreatic cancer: a protocol for a network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. e018175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Long Ge ◽  
Bei Pan ◽  
Fujian Song ◽  
Jichun Ma ◽  
Dena Zeraatkar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Resectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Ras Gene ◽  
Patient Consent ◽  
Tumour Biomarkers

IntroductionSurgical resection is the only curative treatment for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. Unfortunately, 80%–85% of patients present with locally advanced or metastatic unresectable pancreatic cancer at the time of diagnosis. Detection of pancreatic cancer at early stages remains a great challenge due to lack of accurate detection tests. Recommendations in existing clinical practice guidelines on early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer are inconsistent and based on limited evidence. Most of them endorse measuring serum CA19-9 as a complementary test, but also state that it is not recommended for diagnosing early pancreatic cancer. There are currently no other tumour-specific markers recommended for diagnosing early pancreatic cancer. This study aims to evaluate and compare the accuracy of five common tumour biomarkers (CA242,carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA)), CA125, microRNAs and K-ras gene mutation) and CA19-9 and their combinations for diagnosing pancreatic cancer using network meta-analysis method, and to rank these tests using a superiority index.Methods and analysisPubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched from inception to April 2017. The search will include the above-mentioned tumour biomarkers for diagnosing pancreatic cancer, including CA19-9. The risk of bias for each study will be independently assessed as low, moderate or high using criteria adapted from the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Network meta-analysis will be performed using STATA V.12.0 and R software V.3.4.1. The competing diagnostic tests will be ranked by a superiority index.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval and patient consent are not required since this study is a network meta-analysis based on published studies. The results of this network meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017064627.

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.

Diagnostic accuracy of molecular tumor profiling in determining the tissue of origin in adult patients with cancer of unknown primary: A meta-analysis.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 20-20
Author(s):  
Rowena Torres Inocencio ◽  
Kavitha Kesari ◽  
Susan Smith
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Cancer Of Unknown Primary ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Unknown Primary ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Tissue Of Origin ◽  
Tumor Profiling

20 Background: Appropriate cancer treatment requires determination of the primary site of origin. The standard of care for diagnosing Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) based on the 2016 NCCN Guidelines is a comprehensive clinical work-up including biopsy and immunohistochemistry (IHC). However, IHC was able to identify a primary tumor in only 25% of CUP. Molecular tumor profiling (MTP) validation studies demonstrated sensitivities of 74-89% and specificities of 95-99%. Only a few studies with small sample sizes using MTP to diagnose the primary in CUP have been performed yielding variable results. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MTP in determining the tissue of origin in adult patients with CUP. Methods: Literature search included articles published in any language indexed in MEDLINE and Cochrane. A Google Scholar search and a review of all published articles’ references were performed. Unpublished studies and abstracts from conference proceedings were also reviewed. Studies involving adult patients with CUP who underwent both MTP and clinical evaluation with IHC were identified. Articles were included if they had primary data sufficient to calculate both sensitivity and specificity. Methodological qualities of the included studies were evaluated using the QUADAS-2 tool. Data was analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 and MetaDiSc 1.4. Results: Seven studies with 549 patients were analyzed. MTP was found to have a pooled sensitivity of 89% (95% CI 0.85-0.92)and pooled specificity of 74% (95% CI 0.67-0.80)with pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios of 2.97 (95% CI 1.17-7.63) and 0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.51), respectively. Area under the curve was measured to be 0.9107. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that MTP could be useful in determining the tissue of origin in adult patients with CUP. With an area under the curve of 0.9107, it is an excellent diagnostic test. The results showed considerable heterogeneity as expected in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy. In this case, it may be due to variability among the MTP assays used which may reflect different cutoffs.

Evidence-based diagnosis

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 57-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penny Whiting ◽  
Roger Harbord ◽  
Isabel de Salis ◽  
Matthias Egger ◽  
Jonathan Sterne
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Literature Searching ◽  
Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic ◽  
Statistical Knowledge ◽  
Appropriate Treatment

Making an accurate diagnosis is essential to ensure that a patient receives appropriate treatment and correct information regarding their prognosis. Characteristics of diagnostic tests are quantified in test accuracy studies, but many such studies have methodological flaws. The HSRC evidence-based diagnosis programme has focused on methods for systematic reviews of test accuracy studies, and the wider context in which tests are ordered and interpreted. We carried out a range of projects relating to literature searching, quality assessment, meta-analysis, presentation of results, and interactions between doctors and patients during the diagnostic process. We have shown that systematic reviews of test accuracy studies should search a range of databases and that current diagnostic filters do not have sufficient accuracy to be used in test accuracy reviews. Summary quality scores should not be used in test accuracy reviews; the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy included in Systematic Reviews (QUADAS) tool for assessing test accuracy studies is acceptable for quality assessment. We have shown that the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) and bivariate models for meta-analysis of test accuracy are statistically equivalent in many circumstances, and have developed an add-on module for the statistical software package Stata that enables these statistically rigorous models to be fitted by those without expert statistical knowledge. Three areas that would benefit from further research are literature searching, synthesis of results from individual patient data and presentation of results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document