scholarly journals Diagonal Earlobe Crease (Frank’s Sign) for Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (13) ◽  
pp. 2799
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Więckowski ◽  
Tomasz Gallina ◽  
Andrzej Surdacki ◽  
Bernadeta Chyrchel

Coronary artery disease is a global challenge for healthcare systems. Early diagnosis is a key issue to improve quality of life and reduce morbidity and mortality. Diagonal earlobe crease, a wrinkle extending obliquely across the earlobe, was linked by many authors to various atherosclerotic diseases. This systematic review aimed at summarizing the diagnostic accuracy of diagonal earlobe crease for diagnosis of chronic and acute coronary syndromes in adults. Cochrane’s recommendations for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies were followed. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO. Seven electronic databases were searched up to April 2021. The risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Meta-analysis was not performed. Finally, 13 cross-sectional studies evaluating 3951 patients were analyzed, all of which focused on chronic coronary syndromes defined as anatomically significant coronary stenosis. Invasive coronary angiography was used as a reference in most studies, except one which utilized computed tomography angiography. Sensitivity ranged from 26% to 90%, and specificity from 32% to 96%. Positive likelihood ratios varied from 1.11 to 7.03, but most results were below 2. Negative likelihood ratios were from 0.84 to 0.30, but most values exceeded 0.5. Diagnostic accuracy of diagonal earlobe crease for the detection of chronic coronary syndromes is insufficient. It only slightly changes pre-test probability, and its mere presence or absence should not affect the clinical management of the patients. However, for its feasibility and easy interpretation, Frank’s sign could be considered as a part of physical examination.

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 1744-1755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai ◽  
Francesco Versaci ◽  
Ami E. Iskandrian ◽  
Orazio Schillaci ◽  
Alessandro Nudi ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pakpoom Subsoontorn ◽  
Manupat Lohitnavy ◽  
Chuenjid Kongkaew

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.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoë Tieges ◽  
Alasdair M J Maclullich ◽  
Atul Anand ◽  
Claire Brookes ◽  
Marica Cassarino ◽  
...  

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.


2008 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 449-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bertrand Janne d’Othée ◽  
Uwe Siebert ◽  
Ricardo Cury ◽  
Hossein Jadvar ◽  
Edward J. Dunn ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document