Diagnostic Accuracy of Tuning Fork Tests for Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 159 (2) ◽  
pp. 220-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Kelly ◽  
Bin Li ◽  
Meredith E. Adams
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Tuning Fork ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Conductive Hearing

Objective (1) To determine the diagnostic accuracy of tuning fork tests (TFTs; Weber and Rinne) for assessment of hearing loss as compared with standard audiometry. (2) To identify the audiometric threshold at which TFTs transition from normal to abnormal, thus indicating the presence of hearing loss. Data Sources PubMed, Ovid Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus and manual bibliographic searches. Review Methods A systematic review of studies reporting TFT accuracy was performed according to a standardized protocol. Two independent evaluators corroborated the extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Results Seventeen studies with 3158 participants, including adults and children, met inclusion criteria. The sensitivity and specificity of the Rinne test for detecting conductive hearing loss ranged from 43% to 91% and 50% to 100%, respectively, for a 256-Hz fork and from 16% to 87% and 55% to 100% for a 512-Hz fork. The audiometric thresholds at which tests transition from normal to abnormal ranged from 13 to 40 dB of conductive hearing loss for the Rinne test and from 2.5 to 4 dB of asymmetry for the Weber test. Significant heterogeneity in TFT methods and audiometric thresholds to define hearing loss precluded meta-analysis. There is high risk of bias in patient selection for a majority of the studies. Conclusion Variability exists in the reported test accuracy measurements of TFTs for clinical screening, surgical candidacy assessments, and estimation of hearing loss severity. Clinicians should remain mindful of these differences and optimize these techniques in specific clinical applications to improve TFT accuracy.

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.

Quality of life of children treated for unilateral hearing loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. archdischild-2020-320389
Author(s):  
Sarah Nicolas ◽  
Yohan Gallois ◽  
Marie-Noëlle Calmels ◽  
Olivier Deguine ◽  
Bernard Fraysse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
Design Selection

ObjectiveTo evaluate the treatments’ consequences for unilateral hearing loss in children.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis (CRD42018109417). The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ISRCTN and ClinicalTrials databases were searched between September 2018 and May 2019. Articles were screened and data were collected independently by two authors following the Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, the National Institute of Health, USA tool and considering the risk of confounding. In the studies with the lowest risk of bias, a meta-analysis was conducted.InterventionsValidated hearing rehabilitation devices.Patients6–15 years old children with moderate to profound unilateral hearing loss.Main outcome measuresThe primary study outcome was children’s quality of life. Academic performances were studied as an additional outcome.Results731 unique articles were identified from the primary search. Of these, 18 articles met the Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes and Study design selection criteria. In the eight studies with the lowest risk of bias, two meta-analysis were conducted. There was not enough data on academic results to conduct a meta-analysis. In 73 children included in a fixed effect meta-analysis (two studies), no effect of treatment could be shown (g=−0.20, p=0.39). In 61 children included in a random-effect meta-analysis (six studies), a strong positive effect of hearing treatment on quality of life was demonstrated (g=1.32, p<0.05).ConclusionsThe treatment of unilateral hearing loss seems to improve children’s quality of life. Further research is needed to identify the most effective treatment and its corresponding indications.

scholarly journals Panoramic versus CBCT used to reduce inferior alveolar nerve paresthesia after third molar extractions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 20190265
Author(s):  
Nathalia Calzavara Del Lhano ◽  
Rosangela Almeida Ribeiro ◽  
Carolina Castro Martins ◽  
Neuza Maria Souza Picorelli Assis ◽  
Karina Lopes Devito
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Panoramic Radiography ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to verify whether CBCT in comparison with panoramic radiography reduced the cases of temporary paresthesias of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) associated with third molar extractions. Methods: The literature search included five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, SciELO), in addition to gray literature and hand search of reference list of included studies. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts, and full texts according to eligibility criteria, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias through Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB 2.0). Data were meta-analyzed by comparing CBCT versus panoramic radiographs for number of events (temporary paresthesia after third molar surgery). Fixed effect model was used for non-significant heterogeneity; relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated. The certainty of evidence was evaluated by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in meta-analysis, and for the majority of domains they presented low risk of bias. RR was 1.23 (95% IC: 0.75–2.02; I2: 0%; p = 0.43) favouring panoramic radiography, but without significant effect, and with moderate certainty of evidence. Conclusions: We concluded that both interventions had a similar ability to reduce temporary paresthesia of the IAN after third molar surgery with moderate certainty of evidence.

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.

A Smartphone-Based Weber Test May Discriminate between a Conductive and a Sensorineural Hearing Loss

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 191-196
Author(s):  
Omer J. Ungar ◽  
Ophir Handzel ◽  
Oren Cavel ◽  
Yahav Oron
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Clinical Study ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Tuning Fork ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
Conductive Hearing

Objective: The aim of this paper was to compare the accuracy of a smartphone-based Weber test (SPWT) with the traditional tuning fork Weber test (TFWT) in identifying and differentiating between sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and conductive hearing loss (CHL). Study Design: We conducted a prospective, noncontrolled clinical study. Methods: Sixty patients referred to the emergency department due to unilateral hearing loss (HL) were enrolled. They were asked to press a single uncovered smartphone on their forehead and conduct a Weber test by means of the smartphone’s vibration application. The results were compared to the TFWT. Results: Twenty-six (43%) patients were diagnosed with a SNHL, and 34 (57%) with a CHL. The SPWT was in agreement with the TFWT (at a frequency of 512 Hz) in 55 (92%) patients. The sensitivity and specificity of the TFWT were 84.6 and 94.1%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the SPWT were 76.9 and 97.1%, respectively. Conclusion: SPWT can serve as an auxiliary diagnostic tool in the absence of a 512-Hz tuning fork to assist in the identification of the type of HL and to potentially hasten the diagnosis and provision of treatment when indicated.

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m2516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayara Lisboa Bastos ◽  
Gamuchirai Tavaziva ◽  
Syed Kunal Abidi ◽  
Jonathon R Campbell ◽  
Louis-Patrick Haraoui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Symptom Onset ◽  
Serological Test ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Immunoglobulin Class

AbstractObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.Results5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).ConclusionHigher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179452.

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 Diagnostic Accuracy of Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy for the Diagnosis of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (23) ◽  
pp. 12390
Author(s):  
Sneha Sethi ◽  
Xiangqun Ju ◽  
Richard M. Logan ◽  
Paul Sambrook ◽  
Robert A. McLaughlin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy ◽  
Confocal Laser ◽  
Likelihood Ratios

Background: Advances in treatment approaches for patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) have been unsuccessful in preventing frequent recurrences and distant metastases, leading to a poor prognosis. Early detection and prevention enable an improved 5-year survival and better prognosis. Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (CLE) is a non-invasive imaging instrument that could enable an earlier diagnosis and possibly help in reducing unnecessary invasive surgical procedures. Objective: To present an up to date systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CLE in diagnosing OSCC. Materials and Methods. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were explored up to 30 June 2021, to collect articles concerning the diagnosis of OSCC through CLE. Screening: data extraction and appraisal was done by two reviewers. The quality of the methodology followed by the studies included in this review was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. A random effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Results: Six studies were included, leading to a total number of 361 lesions in 213 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95% (95% CI, 92–97%; I2 = 77.5%) and 93% (95% CI, 90–95%; I2 = 68.6%); the pooled positive likelihood ratios and negative likelihood ratios were 10.85 (95% CI, 5.4–21.7; I2 = 55.9%) and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.03–0.2; I2 = 83.5%); and the pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 174.45 (95% CI, 34.51–881.69; I2 = 73.6%). Although risk of bias and heterogeneity is observed, this study validates that CLE may have a noteworthy clinical influence on the diagnosis of OSCC, through its high sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions: This review indicates an exceptionally high sensitivity and specificity of CLE for diagnosing OSCC. Whilst it is a promising diagnostic instrument, the limited number of existing studies and potential risk of bias of included studies does not allow us to draw firm conclusions. A conclusive inference can be drawn when more studies, possibly with homogeneous methodological approach, are performed.

scholarly journals Efficacy of remdesivir versus placebo for the treatment of COVID-19: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Desye Gebrie ◽  
Desalegn Getnet ◽  
Tsegahun Manyazewal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antiviral Drug ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
List Type ◽  
Randomized Controlled

AbstractBackgroundIn spite of the global containment on prevention efforts, the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is continuing to rise, with 1.1 million confirmed cases and 60,124 deaths recorded worldwide since 04 April 2020. The outbreak has a significant threat to international health and economy. At present, there is no approved vaccine or treatment for the disease, while efforts are underway. Remdesivir, a nucleotide-analogue antiviral drug developed for Ebola, is determined to prevent and stop infections with COVID-19, while results are yet controversial. Here, we aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the effectiveness of remdesivir and placebo in patients with COVID-19.Method and analysisWe will search MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google scholar databases without restriction in year of publication. We will include randomized controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of remdesivir versus placebo for patients confirmed with COVID-19. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA 2015) guidelines for the design and reporting of the results. The primary endpoint will be time to clinical recovery. The secondary endpoints will be all cause mortality, discharged date, frequency of respiratory progression, and treatment-emergent adverse events. Two independent authors will perform study selection, data extraction, and methodology quality assessment. RevMan 5.3 software will be used for statistical analysis. Random/fixed effect model will be carried out to calculate mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes between remdesivir and placebo.Ethics and disseminationThis study does not require ethical approval, because no participant’s data will be involved in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The findings of this study will be published in reputable and peer-reviewed journal.RegistrationThis review protocol is submitted in PROSPERO database for registration and we will include the registration number in the revised version of the manuscript.Strengths and limitations of this study➣This systematic review and meta-analysis will be derived from only randomized controlled trials which will increase the quality of evidences.➣This systematic review and meta-analysis will be derived from only randomized controlled trials which will reduce between study heterogeneity.➣Subgroup and sensitivity analysis will be carried out to identify possible reasons that may cause significant heterogeneity between studies.➣The use of Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risk of bias for each included studies to extract and synthesize evidence based conclusions.➣One of the limitation of this study might be the restriction of trials published in English language.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document