scholarly journals Risk of bias from inclusion of patients who already have diagnosis of or are undergoing treatment for depression in diagnostic accuracy studies of screening tools for depression: systematic review

BMJ ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 343 (aug18 1) ◽  
pp. d4825-d4825 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. D. Thombs ◽  
E. Arthurs ◽  
G. El-Baalbaki ◽  
A. Meijer ◽  
R. C. Ziegelstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Screening Tools

Screening Tools for Cognitive Impairment in Adults with Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Katherine Y. Ko ◽  
Nicole Ridley ◽  
Shayden D. Bryce ◽  
Kelly Allott ◽  
Angela Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Substance Use ◽  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Substance Use Disorders ◽  
Classification Accuracy ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Cognitive Screening ◽  
Screening Measures

ABSTRACT Objectives: Cognitive impairment is common in individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs), yet no evidence-based guidelines exist regarding the most appropriate screening measure for use in this population. This systematic review aimed to (1) describe different cognitive screening measures used in adults with SUDs, (2) identify substance use populations and contexts these tools are utilised in, (3) review diagnostic accuracy of these screening measures versus an accepted objective reference standard, and (4) evaluate methodology of included studies for risk of bias. Methods: Online databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL) were searched for relevant studies according to pre-determined criteria, and risk of bias and applicability was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2 (QUADAS–2). At each review phase, dual screening, extraction, and quality ratings were performed. Results: Fourteen studies met inclusion, identifying 10 unique cognitive screening tools. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was the most common, and two novel screening tools (Brief Evaluation of Alcohol-Related Neuropsychological Impairments [BEARNI] and Brief Executive Function Assessment Tool [BEAT]) were specifically developed for use within SUD populations. Twelve studies reported on classification accuracy and relevant psychometric parameters (e.g., sensitivity and specificity). While several tools yielded acceptable to outstanding classification accuracy, there was poor adherence to the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) across all studies, with high or unclear risk of methodological bias. Conclusions: While some screening tools exhibit promise for use within SUD populations, further evaluation with stronger methodological design and reporting is required. Clinical recommendations and future directions for research are discussed.

scholarly journals Characteristics of patients who had a stroke not initially identified during emergency prehospital assessment: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
pp. emermed-2020-209607
Author(s):  
Stephanie P Jones ◽  
Janet E Bray ◽  
Josephine ME Gibson ◽  
Graham McClelland ◽  
Colette Miller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Visual Disturbance ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
False Negatives ◽  
Presenting Symptoms ◽  
Ischaemic Attack ◽  
Stroke Type ◽  
Key Terms

BackgroundAround 25% of patients who had a stroke do not present with typical ‘face, arm, speech’ symptoms at onset, and are challenging for emergency medical services (EMS) to identify. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the characteristics of acute stroke presentations associated with inaccurate EMS identification (false negatives).MethodWe performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PubMed from 1995 to August 2020 using key terms: stroke, EMS, paramedics, identification and assessment. Studies included: patients who had a stroke or patient records; ≥18 years; any stroke type; prehospital assessment undertaken by health professionals including paramedics or technicians; data reported on prehospital diagnostic accuracy and/or presenting symptoms. Data were extracted and study quality assessed by two researchers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies V.2 tool.ResultsOf 845 studies initially identified, 21 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Of the 6934 stroke and Transient Ischaemic Attack patients included, there were 1774 (26%) false negative patients (range from 4 (2%) to 247 (52%)). Commonly documented symptoms in false negative cases were speech problems (n=107; 13%–28%), nausea/vomiting (n=94; 8%–38%), dizziness (n=86; 23%–27%), changes in mental status (n=51; 8%–25%) and visual disturbance/impairment (n=43; 13%–28%).ConclusionSpeech problems and posterior circulation symptoms were the most commonly documented symptoms among stroke presentations that were not correctly identified by EMS (false negatives). However, the addition of further symptoms to stroke screening tools requires valuation of subsequent sensitivity and specificity, training needs and possible overuse of high priority resources.

A Systematic Review of the Current State and Validity of Digital Assessment Tools for Psychiatry (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nayra Anna Martin-Key ◽  
Benedetta Spadaro ◽  
Erin Funnell ◽  
Eleanor Jane Barker ◽  
Thea Sofie Schei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Digital Assessment ◽  
Current State

BACKGROUND Given the role digital technologies are likely to play in the future of mental healthcare, there is a need for a comprehensive appraisal of the current state and validity (i.e., screening/diagnostic accuracy) of digital mental health assessments. OBJECTIVE To explore the current state and validity of question-and-answer-based digital tools for diagnosing and screening psychiatric conditions in adults. METHODS This systematic review was based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework and was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, ASSIA, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were systematically searched for articles published between 2005 and 2020. A descriptive evaluation of the study characteristics and digital solutions and a quantitative appraisal of the screening/diagnostic accuracy of the included tools was conducted. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) guidelines. RESULTS A total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria, with the most frequently evaluated conditions encompassing generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and any depressive disorder. The majority of the studies employed digitized versions of existing pen-and-paper questionnaires, with findings revealing poor to excellent screening/diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity = 0.36-1.00, specificity = 0.37-1.00, AUC = 0.57-0.98) and a high risk of bias for most of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS The current state of the field of digital mental health tools is in its early stages and high-quality evidence is lacking. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.2196/25382

scholarly journals Psoriatic arthritis screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Rheumatology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 692-707 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Iragorri ◽  
Glen Hazlewood ◽  
Braden Manns ◽  
Vishva Danthurebandara ◽  
Eldon Spackman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Screening Questionnaire ◽  
Psa Screening ◽  
Early Psoriatic Arthritis

Abstract Objective To systematically review the accuracy and characteristics of different questionnaire-based PsA screening tools. Methods A systematic review of MEDLINE, Excerpta Medical Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science was conducted to identify studies that evaluated the accuracy of self-administered PsA screening tools for patients with psoriasis. A bivariate meta-analysis was used to pool screening tool-specific accuracy estimates (sensitivity and specificity). Heterogeneity of the diagnostic odds ratio was evaluated through meta-regression. All full-text records were assessed for risk of bias with the QUADAS 2 tool. Results A total of 2280 references were identified and 130 records were assessed for full-text review, of which 42 were included for synthesis. Of these, 27 were included in quantitative syntheses. Of the records, 37% had an overall low risk of bias. Fourteen different screening tools and 104 separate accuracy estimates were identified. Pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated for the Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation (cut-off = 44), Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation (47), Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screening (8), Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (3) and Early Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire (3). The Early Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire reported the highest sensitivity and specificity (0.85 each). The I2 for the diagnostic odds ratios varied between 76 and 90.1%. Meta-regressions were conducted, in which the age, risk of bias for patient selection and the screening tool accounted for some of the observed heterogeneity. Conclusions Questionnaire-based tools have moderate accuracy to identify PsA among psoriasis patients. The Early Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire appears to have slightly better accuracy compared with the Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screening, Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool and Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation. An economic evaluation could model the uncertainty and estimate the cost-effectiveness of PsA screening programs that use different tools.

scholarly journals Diagnostic utility of the Active Compression Test for the superior labrum anterior posterior tear: A systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 321-331
Author(s):  
Cody Davis ◽  
Jenna Immormino ◽  
Brendan M Higgins ◽  
Kyle Clark ◽  
Samuel Engebose ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Compression Test ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Pretest Probability ◽  
Positive Finding ◽  
Negative Finding ◽  
Superior Labrum

Background The Active Compression Test has been proposed to have high diagnostic accuracy for superior labrum anterior to posterior tears. The aim of this systematic review was to compile the available evidence for this test and evaluate its diagnostic accuracy. Methods The databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, and SCOPUS were searched for case control, diagnostic studies that evaluated the Active Compression Test between 1999 (date of test introduction) and February 2018. Two independent review authors screened the search results, assessed the risk of bias using QUADAS-2, and extracted the data. Results Eighteen studies (pooled sample = 3091) were included in this review. Twelve out of 18 studies either had high or unclear risk of bias (66.6%). Results from the pooled analysis of all 18 studies provided that the Active Compression Test is more sensitive (71.5: 95% CI = 68.8, 74.0) than specific (51.9: 95% CI = 50.7, 53.1) and only marginally influenced posttest probability from a pretest probability of 31.7–40.72% with a positive finding and a pretest probability of 31.7–20.33% with a negative finding. Discussion The Active Compression Test has both limited screening and confirmation ability; therefore, we do not advocate for its use in clinical decision making.

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.

scholarly journals Accuracy of Anti-GBM Antibodies in Diagnosing Anti-Glomerular Basement Membrane Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Akihiro Shiroshita ◽  
Yasuhiro Oda ◽  
Seiji Takenouchi ◽  
Noboru Hagino ◽  
Yuki Kataoka
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Basement Membrane ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Glomerular Basement Membrane ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Risk Of Bias

<b><i>Background:</i></b> The sensitivity and specificity of anti-glomerular basement membrane (GBM) antibodies have not been systematically analyzed. In this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of anti-GBM antibodies for anti-GBM disease. <b><i>Summary:</i></b> Potential studies were searched using MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform based on the index test and target condition. The inclusion criteria were prospective or retrospective cohort studies or case-control studies assessing the sensitivity and specificity of anti-GBM antibodies, and the reference standard was clinical diagnosis including biopsy results. The exclusion criteria were review articles, case reports, animal studies, and in vitro studies. Quality assessment was conducted based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. The pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. The overall quality was evaluated using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Six studies (1,691 patients) and 11 index tests were included in our systematic review. A high risk of bias and concerns regarding the applicability of patient selection were noted because of the case-control design in 67% of the included studies. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 93% (95% CI: 84–97%) and 97% (95% CI: 94–99%), respectively. The certainty of evidence was low because of the high risk of bias and indirectness. <b><i>Key Messages:</i></b> Anti-GBM antibodies may exhibit high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of anti-GBM disease. Further cohort studies are needed to confirm their precise diagnostic accuracy and compare diagnostic accuracies among different immunoassays.

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 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document