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 Both published and unpublished databases were searched from their inception to August 2010.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 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.

The Delirium Observation Screening Scale: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy

2020 ◽  
pp. 105477382096123
Author(s):  
Jinkyung Park ◽  
Eunhye Jeong ◽  
Juneyoung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Hierarchical Regression ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Dos Scale

Delirium is a reversible impairment of metabolism in the human brain. Early detection is important, and an effective screening tool for nurses is crucial. The Delirium Observation Screening (DOS) scale is one such screening tool; however, its diagnostic test accuracy has not yet been thoroughly examined. This study, therefore, aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the scale through a systematic review and meta-analysis. In July 2019, a search was conducted in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycARTICLES databases, and following a review against pre-defined eligibility criteria, eight studies were finally included. The quality assessment tool of diagnostic accuracy studies was applied to each study and a hierarchical regression model was used to calculate the pooled estimates of sensitivity (90%; 76%–97%, CI 95%) and specificity (92%; 88%–94%, CI 95%). The findings indicated a high diagnostic test accuracy for the DOS scale.

scholarly journals Protocol for a systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy of tests for IgE-mediated food allergy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Genuneit ◽  
Sashini Jayasinghe ◽  
CARMEN RIGGIONI ◽  
Rachel Peters ◽  
Derek Chu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Food Allergy ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Index Test ◽  
Ige Mediated ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of updating the guidelines on the diagnosis and management of food allergy. The existing guidelines are based on a systematic review of the literature until 30th September 2012. Therefore, a new systematic review must be undertaken to inform the new guidelines. This systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of index tests to support the diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy. Methods: The databases Cochrane CENTRAL (Trials), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) will be searched for diagnostic test accuracy studies from 1st October 2012 to 30th June 2021. Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be used to select appropriate studies. Data from these studies will be extracted and tabulated, and then reviewed for risk of bias and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool. All evaluation will be done in duplicate. Studies with a high risk of bias and low applicability will be excluded. Meta-analysis will be performed if there are three or more studies of the same index test and food. Results: A protocol for the systematic review and meta-analyses is presented and was registered using Prospero prior to commencing the literature search. Discussion: Oral food challenges are the reference standard for diagnosis but involve considerable risks and resources. This protocol for systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of various tests to diagnose food allergy, which can be useful in both clinical and research settings.

Diagnostic Test Accuracy of the Beck Depression Inventory for Detecting Major Depression in Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 105477382110651
Author(s):  
Anna Lee ◽  
Jinkyung Park
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Beck Depression Inventory ◽  
Social Cognitive ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Hierarchical Regression ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Hierarchical Regression Model

Major depressive disorder in adolescents is closely linked to poor social, cognitive, and academic outcomes, including suicidality. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), a screening tool, is one of the most widely used instruments for detecting depression; however, its diagnostic test accuracy has not yet been thoroughly examined. This study, therefore, aimed to systematically review and perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of the BDI for detecting depression in adolescents. In August 2020, a search was conducted in the EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycArticles databases, and following a review against predefined eligibility criteria, 22 studies were finally included. The quality of the included articles was evaluated, and a hierarchical regression model was used to calculate the pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity; 73.0% (95% CI; 62.0%, 81.8%) and 80.3% (72.8%, 86.1%) in cutoff 16, respectively. The findings indicated the BDI is a reliable and useful tool to screen adolescents’ depression.

EUS versus magnetic resonance imaging in staging rectal adenocarcinoma: a diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-203.e1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian P.H. Chan ◽  
Raxitkumar Patel ◽  
Lawrence Mbuagbaw ◽  
Lehana Thabane ◽  
Mohammad Yaghoobi
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Rectal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Resonance Imaging

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document