scholarly journals PAX2 in endometrial carcinogenesis and in differential diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy

2019 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Raffone ◽  
Antonio Travaglino ◽  
Gabriele Saccone ◽  
Massimo Mascolo ◽  
Luigi Insabato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Endometrial Hyperplasia ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Can physical testing be used to distinguish between migraine and cervicogenic headache sufferers? A protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e031587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernesto Anarte ◽  
Gabriela Ferreira Carvalho ◽  
Annika Schwarz ◽  
Kerstin Luedtke ◽  
Deborah Falla
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cervicogenic Headache ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Black Scale ◽  
Physical Tests ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Asymptomatic Subjects

IntroductionDifferential diagnosis of migraine and cervicogenic headache (CGH) can be challenging given the large overlap of symptoms, commonly leading to misdiagnosis and ineffective treatment. In order to strengthen the differential diagnosis of headache, previous studies have evaluated the utility of physical tests to examine for musculoskeletal impairment, mainly in the cervical spine, which could be provoking or triggering headache. However, no systematic review has attempted to evaluate whether physical tests can differentiate CGH from migraine or both conditions from asymptomatic subjects.Methods/analysisA systematic review protocol has been designed and is reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). A sensitive topic-based search strategy is planned which will include databases, hand searching of key journals and consultation of relevant leading authors in this field. Terms and keywords will be selected after discussion and agreement. Two independent reviewers will perform the search and select studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, including any cohort or observational studies evaluating the topic of this review; a third reviewer will confirm accuracy. A narrative synthesis will be developed for all included studies and, if possible, a meta-analysis will be conducted. The overall quality of the evidence will be assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist for diagnostic accuracy studies and the Downs and Black scale for those studies where the QUADAS-2 checklist cannot be applied.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required since no patient information will be collected. The results will provide a deeper understanding about the possibility of using physical tests to differentiate cervicogenic headache from migraine and from asymptomatic subjects, which has direct relevance for clinicians managing people with headache. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019135269.

scholarly journals Standard echocardiography versus handheld echocardiography for the detection of subclinical rheumatic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e038449
Author(s):  
Lisa Helen Telford ◽  
Leila Hussein Abdullahi ◽  
Eleanor Atieno Ochodo ◽  
Liesl Joanna Zuhlke ◽  
Mark Emmanuel Engel
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Receiver Operating Characteristic ◽  
Rheumatic Heart Disease ◽  
Operating Characteristic ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Endemic Areas ◽  
Rheumatic Heart ◽  
Receiver Operating

ObjectiveTo summarise the accuracy of handheld echocardiography (HAND) which, if shown to be sufficiently similar to that of standard echocardiography (STAND), could usher in a new age of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) screening in endemic areas.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus, EBSCOHost and ISI Web of Science were initially searched on 27 September 2017 and again on 3 March 2020 for studies published from 2012 onwards.Eligibility criteriaStudies assessing the accuracy of HAND compared with STAND when performed by an experienced cardiologist in conjunction with the 2012 World Heart Federation criteria among populations of children and adolescents living in endemic areas were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies against review-specific Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 criteria. A meta-analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model was conducted to produce summary results of sensitivity and specificity. Forest plots and scatter plots in receiver operating characteristic space in combination with subgroup analyses were used to investigate heterogeneity. Publication bias was not investigated.ResultsSix studies (N=4208) were included in the analysis. For any RHD detection, the pooled results from six studies were as follows: sensitivity: 81.56% (95% CI 76.52% to 86.61%) and specificity: 89.75% (84.48% to 95.01%). Meta-analytical results from five of the six included studies were as follows: sensitivity: 91.06% (80.46% to 100%) and specificity: 91.96% (85.57% to 98.36%) for the detection of definite RHD only and sensitivity: 62.01% (31.80% to 92.22%) and specificity: 82.33% (65.15% to 99.52%) for the detection of borderline RHD only.ConclusionsHAND displayed good accuracy for detecting definite RHD only and modest accuracy for detecting any RHD but demonstrated poor accuracy for the detection of borderline RHD alone. Findings from this review provide some evidence for the potential of HAND to increase access to echocardiographic screening for RHD in resource-limited and remote settings; however, further research into feasibility and cost-effectiveness of wide-scale screening is still needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016051261.

scholarly journals B-PO03-185 THE DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF QTC MEASUREMENTS FROM SINGLE-LEAD PORTABLE ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHIC DEVICES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Heart Rhythm ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. S264-S265
Author(s):  
Yehia Fanous ◽  
Pavel Antiperovitch ◽  
Jacob Fanous ◽  
Anthony S. Tang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document