Search

Background: Sample collection is a key driver of accuracy in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Viral load may vary at different anatomical sampling sites and accuracy may be compromised by difficulties obtaining specimens and the expertise of the person taking the sample. It is important to optimise sampling accuracy within cost, safety and accessibility constraints., Objectives: To compare the sensitivity of different sampling collection sites and methods for the detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection with any molecular or antigen-based test., Search Methods: Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 22 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic people with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing testing. We included studies of any design that compared results from different sample types (anatomical location, operator, collection device) collected from the same participant within a 24-hour period., Data Collection and Analysis: Within a sample pair, we defined a reference sample and an index sample collected from the same participant within the same clinical encounter (within 24 hours). Where the sample comparison was different anatomical sites, the reference standard was defined as a nasopharyngeal or combined naso/oropharyngeal sample collected into the same sample container and the index sample as the alternative anatomical site. Where the sample comparison was concerned with differences in the sample collection method from the same site, we defined the reference sample as that closest to standard practice for that sample type. Where the sample pair comparison was concerned with differences in personnel collecting the sample, the more skilled or experienced operator was considered the reference sample. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C checklists, tailored to this review. We present estimates of the difference in the sensitivity (reference sample (%) minus index sample sensitivity (%)) in a pair and as an average across studies for each index sampling method using forest plots and tables. We examined heterogeneity between studies according to population (age, symptom status) and index sample (time post-symptom onset, operator expertise, use of transport medium) characteristics., Main Results: This review includes 106 studies reporting 154 evaluations and 60,523 sample pair comparisons, of which 11,045 had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ninety evaluations were of saliva samples, 37 nasal, seven oropharyngeal, six gargle, six oral and four combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples. Four evaluations were of the effect of operator expertise on the accuracy of three different sample types. The majority of included evaluations (146) used molecular tests, of which 140 used RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction). Eight evaluations were of nasal samples used with Ag-RDTs (rapid antigen tests). The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (35/106, 33%) or the USA (27%) and conducted in dedicated COVID-19 testing clinics or in ambulatory hospital settings (53%). Targeted screening or contact tracing accounted for only 4% of evaluations. Where reported, the majority of evaluations were of adults (91/154, 59%), 28 (18%) were in mixed populations with only seven (4%) in children. The median prevalence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 23% (interquartile (IQR) 13%-40%). Risk of bias and applicability assessment were hampered by poor reporting in 77% and 65% of included studies, respectively. Risk of bias was low across all domains in only 3% of evaluations due to inappropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria, unclear recruitment, lack of blinding, nonrandomised sampling order or differences in testing kit within a sample pair. Sixty-eight percent of evaluation cohorts were judged as being at high or unclear applicability concern either due to inflation of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in study populations by selectively including individuals with confirmed PCR-positive samples or because there was insufficient detail to allow replication of sample collection. When used with RT-PCR • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between gargle and nasopharyngeal samples (on average -1 percentage points, 95% CI -5 to +2, based on 6 evaluations, 2138 sample pairs, of which 389 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between saliva collection from the deep throat and nasopharyngeal samples (on average +10 percentage points, 95% CI -1 to +21, based on 2192 sample pairs, of which 730 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was evidence that saliva collection using spitting, drooling or salivating was on average -12 percentage points less sensitive (95% CI -16 to -8, based on 27,253 sample pairs, of which 4636 had SARS-CoV-2) compared to nasopharyngeal samples. We did not find any evidence of a difference in the sensitivity of saliva collected using spitting, drooling or salivating (sensitivity difference: range from -13 percentage points (spit) to -21 percentage points (salivate)). • Nasal samples (anterior and mid-turbinate collection combined) were, on average, 12 percentage points less sensitive compared to nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -17 to -7), based on 9291 sample pairs, of which 1485 had SARS-CoV-2. We did not find any evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples collected from the mid-turbinates (3942 sample pairs) or from the anterior nares (8272 sample pairs). • There was evidence that oropharyngeal samples were, on average, 17 percentage points less sensitive than nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -29 to -5), based on seven evaluations, 2522 sample pairs, of which 511 had SARS-CoV-2. A much smaller volume of evidence was available for combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples and oral samples. Age, symptom status and use of transport media do not appear to affect the sensitivity of saliva samples and nasal samples. When used with Ag-RDTs • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples (sensitivity, on average, 0 percentage points -0.2 to +0.2, based on 3688 sample pairs, of which 535 had SARS-CoV-2)., Authors' Conclusions: When used with RT-PCR, there is no evidence for a difference in sensitivity of self-collected gargle or deep-throat saliva samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples collected by healthcare workers when used with RT-PCR. Use of these alternative, self-collected sample types has the potential to reduce cost and discomfort and improve the safety of sampling by reducing risk of transmission from aerosol spread which occurs as a result of coughing and gagging during the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal sample collection procedure. This may, in turn, improve access to and uptake of testing. Other types of saliva, nasal, oral and oropharyngeal samples are, on average, less sensitive compared to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples, and it is unlikely that sensitivities of this magnitude would be acceptable for confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR. When used with Ag-RDTs, there is no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The implications of this for self-testing are unclear as evaluations did not report whether nasal samples were self-collected or collected by healthcare workers. Further research is needed in asymptomatic individuals, children and in Ag-RDTs, and to investigate the effect of operator expertise on accuracy. Quality assessment of the evidence base underpinning these conclusions was restricted by poor reporting. There is a need for further high-quality studies, adhering to reporting standards for test accuracy studies., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Objective: To give an overview of methods for updating AI-based clinical prediction models based on new data., Study Design and Setting: We comprehensively searched Scopus and EMBASE up to August 2022 for articles that addressed developments, descriptions, or evaluations of prediction model updating methods. We specifically focused on articles in the medical domain involving AI-based prediction models that were updated based on new data, excluding regression-based updating methods as these have been extensively discussed elsewhere. We categorized and described the identified methods used to update the AI-based prediction model as well as the use cases in which they were used., Results: We included 78 articles. The majority of the included articles discussed updating for neural network methods (93.6%) with medical images as input data (65.4%). In many articles (51.3%) existing, pre-trained models for broad tasks were updated to perform specialized clinical tasks. Other common reasons for model updating were to address changes in the data over time and cross-center differences; however, more unique use cases were also identified, such as updating a model from a broad population to a specific individual. We categorized the identified model updating methods into four categories: neural network-specific methods (described in 92.3% of the articles), ensemble-specific methods (2.5%), model-agnostic methods (9.0%), and other (1.3%). Variations of neural network-specific methods are further categorized based on: (1) the part of the original neural network that is kept, (2) whether and how the original neural network is extended with new parameters, and (3) to what extent the original neural network parameters are adjusted to the new data. The most frequently occurring method (n=30) involved selecting the first layer(s) of an existing neural network, appending new, randomly initialized layers, and then optimizing the entire neural network., Conclusion: We identified many ways to adjust or update AI-based prediction models based on new data, within a large variety of use cases. Updating methods for AI-based prediction models other than neural networks (e.g., random forest) appear to be underexplored in clinical prediction research., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Yellow fever vaccination is considered to provide effective long-term immunity. However, yellow fever breakthrough infections in vaccinated patients have been reported. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we aimed to identify and summarise all documented symptomatic yellow fever breakthrough infections in the literature occurring less than 10 years and 10 years or more after primary yellow fever vaccination., Methods: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Global Index Medicus for records published between Jan 1, 1936 (introduction of yellow fever vaccination) and June 16, 2023. We included prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case series and reports, and epidemiological reports from national and international health organisations reporting symptomatic yellow fever among individuals vaccinated 30 days or more before symptom onset. We excluded cases vaccinated less than 30 days before symptom onset. The primary outcome for the meta-analysis was the proportions of vaccinees among virologically confirmed and probable cases of yellow fever (IgM seroconversion without seroconversion to other flaviviruses). Risk of bias was assessed with an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Records of moderate or good quality (probable or confirmed yellow fever diagnosis with documented proof of previous vaccination) were included for random-effects meta-analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42023450205., Findings: After reviewing 1975 records, 37 records reported a total of 6951 yellow fever cases, of which 537 were vaccinated. 31 records were of low quality. Nine confirmed and 24 probable cases with proof of previous yellow fever vaccination were identified, all from Brazil. Confirmed cases were vaccinated 3 months to 3 years before symptom onset; of these patients two fell severely ill and died. The pooled proportion of verified yellow fever breakthrough infections among probable and confirmed cases was 3% (95% CI 1-19%). No confirmed yellow fever breakthrough infections were identified occurring 10 years or more after yellow fever vaccination., Interpretation: Yellow fever breakthrough infections documented in literature are rare, and not necessarily more common 10 years or more after primary yellow fever vaccination. This finding suggests that a single dose of yellow fever vaccination is sufficient to provide lifelong protective immunity against symptomatic yellow fever., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Functional constipation is common in children and accurate diagnostic methods are essential for early diagnosis and effective management. The diagnostic accuracy of transabdominal ultrasound to diagnose functional constipation is unclear., Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of transverse rectal diameter measurement via transabdominal ultrasound in diagnosing children with functional constipation and in identifying fecal impaction., Materials and Methods: Electronic databases were searched from inception to March 2023. Original studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of measuring transverse rectal diameter via transabdominal ultrasound, including children with and without functional constipation, or with and without fecal impaction were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers., Results: Sixteen studies were included (n = 1,801 children, 0-17 years). Thirteen studies investigated the diagnostic accuracy for functional constipation, and five for fecal impaction. High risk of bias was found across the majority of studies mainly due to un-blinded case-control designs. Cut-off transverse rectal diameter values to diagnose functional constipation ranged from 2.4 cm to 3.8 cm. Meta-analysis (seven studies, n = 509 children) estimated mean sensitivity and specificity to diagnose functional constipation were 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.78) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.71-0.88), respectively. Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of identifying fecal impaction was not feasible. Studies reported a sensitivity and specificity ranging between 68-100% and 83-100%, respectively., Conclusion: Transabdominal ultrasound may be a valuable non-invasive diagnostic tool to diagnose functional constipation by measuring transverse rectal diameter and identifying fecal impaction in children. Heterogeneous study methods and lack of age-dependent normal values impair current clinical recommendations. Future research should focus on separating age groups and developing a standardized protocol., Competing Interests: Declarations. Competing interests: Marc A. Benninga is consultant for Mallinckrodt, Shire, Danone, FrieslandCampina, HIPP, Norgine, Coloplast, United Pharmaceuticals, and Wellspect. All honoraria were paid to the hospital (Amsterdam UMC). Ilan J.N. Koppen received research funding from Wellspect Healthcare and The EuroQol Research Foundation. All other authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The eighth meeting of the International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) was held on September 7 and 8, 2023, at the University College London, London, England. ICASR is an interdisciplinary group whose goal is to maximize the use of technology for conducting rapid, accurate, and efficient evidence synthesis, e.g., systematic reviews, evidence maps, and scoping reviews of scientific evidence. In 2023, the major themes discussed were understanding the benefits and harms of automation tools that have become available in recent years, the advantages and disadvantages of large language models in evidence synthesis, and approaches to ensuring the validity of tools for the proposed task., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: In many resource-limited settings, understaffed hospitals rely on patients' families to provide care during admission. These care tasks are often performed informally, untrained and unsupported. The WHO has called for innovative approaches to tackle health worker shortages globally. Family participation interventions could be such an innovation, but current family participation should be understood before implementation. This review explored the barriers and facilitators family caregivers experience participating in resource-limited adult hospital care., Methods: For this qualitative systematic review, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and the Global Health Library were searched from inception to 17 February 2023. Studies were included if they described experiences of family caregivers participating in hospital-like environments, were performed in a low- or middle-income country and included qualitative data. Open coding was performed, followed by thematic analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument., Results: 3099 studies were screened, and 16 were included, involving 466 participants. All studies were published between 2009 and 2023. Three studies were performed in Africa, three in South America and 10 in Asia. 13 main themes were identified, seven for barriers and six for facilitators, including 50 subthemes. The main barriers identified were caregiver burden, a discouraging hospital environment, economic burden, ineffective collaboration with health workers, lack of support, sacrificing personal life to care and unpreparedness for caregiving. The main facilitators identified were a caregiving mindset, competence for caregiving, effective collaboration with health workers, encouraging hospital environment, sufficient financial means and supportive caregiving systems., Discussion: This review presents the first overview of barriers and facilitators experienced by family caregivers participating in resource-limited hospital care. Research in more contexts and among other stakeholders is necessary to comprehend family participation holistically. To improve family participation, this review suggests prioritising educational interventions., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42023384414., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Diagnosing people with a SARS-CoV-2 infection played a critical role in managing the COVID-19 pandemic and remains a priority for the transition to long-term management of COVID-19. Initial shortages of extraction and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) reagents impaired the desired upscaling of testing in many countries, which led to the search for alternatives to RNA extraction/purification and RT-PCR testing. Reference standard methods for diagnosing the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection rely primarily on real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Alternatives to RT-PCR could, if sufficiently accurate, have a positive impact by expanding the range of diagnostic tools available for the timely identification of people infected by SARS-CoV-2, access to testing and the use of resources., Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of alternative (to RT-PCR assays) laboratory-based molecular tests for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection., Search Methods: We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern until 30 September 2020 and the WHO COVID-19 Research Database until 31 October 2022. We did not apply language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included studies of people with suspected or known SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection, and studies evaluating commercially developed laboratory-based molecular tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection considered as alternatives to RT-PCR testing. We also included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2, including RT-PCR tests and established clinical diagnostic criteria., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently screened studies and resolved disagreements by discussing them with a third author. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We presented sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each test using paired forest plots and summarised results using average sensitivity and specificity using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. We illustrated the findings per index test category and assay brand compared to the WHO's acceptable sensitivity and specificity threshold for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection using nucleic acid tests., Main Results: We included data from 64 studies reporting 94 cohorts of participants and 105 index test evaluations, with 74,753 samples and 7517 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases. We did not identify any published or preprint reports of accuracy for a considerable number of commercially produced NAAT assays. Most cohorts were judged at unclear or high risk of bias in more than three QUADAS-2 domains. Around half of the cohorts were considered at high risk of selection bias because of recruitment based on COVID status. Three quarters of 94 cohorts were at high risk of bias in the reference standard domain because of reliance on a single RT-PCR result to determine the absence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or were at unclear risk of bias due to a lack of clarity about the time interval between the index test assessment and the reference standard, the number of missing results, or the absence of a participant flow diagram. For index tests categories with four or more evaluations and when summary estimations were possible, we found that: a) For RT-PCR assays designed to omit/adapt RNA extraction/purification, the average sensitivity was 95.1% (95% CI 91.1% to 97.3%), and the average specificity was 99.7% (95% CI 98.5% to 99.9%; based on 27 evaluations, 2834 samples and 1178 SARS-CoV-2 cases); b) For RT-LAMP assays, the average sensitivity was 88.4% (95% CI 83.1% to 92.2%), and the average specificity was 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 24 evaluations, 29,496 samples and 2255 SARS-CoV-2 cases); c) for TMA assays, the average sensitivity was 97.6% (95% CI 95.2% to 98.8%), and the average specificity was 99.4% (95% CI 94.9% to 99.9%; 14 evaluations, 2196 samples and 942 SARS-CoV-2 cases); d) for digital PCR assays, the average sensitivity was 98.5% (95% CI 95.2% to 99.5%), and the average specificity was 91.4% (95% CI 60.4% to 98.7%; five evaluations, 703 samples and 354 SARS-CoV-2 cases); e) for RT-LAMP assays omitting/adapting RNA extraction, the average sensitivity was 73.1% (95% CI 58.4% to 84%), and the average specificity was 100% (95% CI 98% to 100%; 24 evaluations, 14,342 samples and 1502 SARS-CoV-2 cases). Only two index test categories fulfil the WHO-acceptable sensitivity and specificity requirements for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid tests: RT-PCR assays designed to omit/adapt RNA extraction/purification and TMA assays. In addition, WHO-acceptable performance criteria were met for two assays out of 35 when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions. At 5% prevalence using a cohort of 1000 people suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the positive predictive value of RT-PCR assays omitting/adapting RNA extraction/purification will be 94%, with three in 51 positive results being false positives, and around two missed cases. For TMA assays, the positive predictive value of RT-PCR assays will be 89%, with 6 in 55 positive results being false positives, and around one missed case., Authors' Conclusions: Alternative laboratory-based molecular tests aim to enhance testing capacity in different ways, such as reducing the time, steps and resources needed to obtain valid results. Several index test technologies with these potential advantages have not been evaluated or have been assessed by only a few studies of limited methodological quality, so the performance of these kits was undetermined. Only two index test categories with enough evaluations for meta-analysis fulfil the WHO set of acceptable accuracy standards for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid tests: RT-PCR assays designed to omit/adapt RNA extraction/purification and TMA assays. These assays might prove to be suitable alternatives to RT-PCR for identifying people infected by SARS-CoV-2, especially when the alternative would be not having access to testing. However, these findings need to be interpreted and used with caution because of several limitations in the evidence, including reliance on retrospective samples without information about the symptom status of participants and the timing of assessment. No extrapolation of found accuracy data for these two alternatives to any test brands using the same techniques can be made as, for both groups, one test brand with high accuracy was overrepresented with 21/26 and 12/14 included studies, respectively. Although we used a comprehensive search and had broad eligibility criteria to include a wide range of tests that could be alternatives to RT-PCR methods, further research is needed to assess the performance of alternative COVID-19 tests and their role in pandemic management., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are time-consuming and labor-intensive to perform. With the growing number of scientific publications, the SR development process becomes even more laborious. This is problematic because timely SR evidence is essential for decision-making in evidence-based healthcare and policymaking. Numerous methods and tools that accelerate SR development have recently emerged. To date, no scoping review has been conducted to provide a comprehensive summary of methods and ready-to-use tools to improve efficiency in SR production., Objective: To present an overview of primary studies that evaluated the use of ready-to-use applications of tools or review methods to improve efficiency in the review process., Methods: We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist performed a systematic literature search in four databases, supplemented with citation-based and grey literature searching. We included studies reporting the performance of methods and ready-to-use tools for improving efficiency when producing or updating a SR in the health field. We performed dual, independent title and abstract screening, full-text selection, and data extraction. The results were analyzed descriptively and presented narratively., Results: We included 103 studies: 51 studies reported on methods, 54 studies on tools, and 2 studies reported on both methods and tools to make SR production more efficient. A total of 72 studies evaluated the validity (n = 69) or usability (n = 3) of one method (n = 33) or tool (n = 39), and 31 studies performed comparative analyses of different methods (n = 15) or tools (n = 16). 20 studies conducted prospective evaluations in real-time workflows. Most studies evaluated methods or tools that aimed at screening titles and abstracts (n = 42) and literature searching (n = 24), while for other steps of the SR process, only a few studies were found. Regarding the outcomes included, most studies reported on validity outcomes (n = 84), while outcomes such as impact on results (n = 23), time-saving (n = 24), usability (n = 13), and cost-saving (n = 3) were less often evaluated., Conclusion: For title and abstract screening and literature searching, various evaluated methods and tools are available that aim at improving the efficiency of SR production. However, only few studies have addressed the influence of these methods and tools in real-world workflows. Few studies exist that evaluate methods or tools supporting the remaining tasks. Additionally, while validity outcomes are frequently reported, there is a lack of evaluation regarding other outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Identifying patients with COVID-19 disease who will deteriorate can be useful to assess whether they should receive intensive care, or whether they can be treated in a less intensive way or through outpatient care. In clinical care, routine laboratory markers, such as C-reactive protein, are used to assess a person's health status., Objectives: To assess the accuracy of routine blood-based laboratory tests to predict mortality and deterioration to severe or critical (from mild or moderate) COVID-19 in people with SARS-CoV-2., Search Methods: On 25 August 2022, we searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, encompassing searches of various databases such as MEDLINE via PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, medRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We did not apply any language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included studies of all designs that produced estimates of prognostic accuracy in participants who presented to outpatient services, or were admitted to general hospital wards with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and studies that were based on serum banks of samples from people. All routine blood-based laboratory tests performed during the first encounter were included. We included any reference standard used to define deterioration to severe or critical disease that was provided by the authors., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data from each included study, and independently assessed the methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Prognostic Accuracy Studies tool. As studies reported different thresholds for the same test, we used the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operator Curve model for meta-analyses to estimate summary curves in SAS 9.4. We estimated the sensitivity at points on the SROC curves that corresponded to the median and interquartile range boundaries of specificities in the included studies. Direct and indirect comparisons were exclusively conducted for biomarkers with an estimated sensitivity and 95% CI of ≥ 50% at a specificity of ≥ 50%. The relative diagnostic odds ratio was calculated as a summary of the relative accuracy of these biomarkers., Main Results: We identified a total of 64 studies, including 71,170 participants, of which 8169 participants died, and 4031 participants deteriorated to severe/critical condition. The studies assessed 53 different laboratory tests. For some tests, both increases and decreases relative to the normal range were included. There was important heterogeneity between tests and their cut-off values. None of the included studies had a low risk of bias or low concern for applicability for all domains. None of the tests included in this review demonstrated high sensitivity or specificity, or both. The five tests with summary sensitivity and specificity above 50% were: C-reactive protein increase, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio increase, lymphocyte count decrease, d-dimer increase, and lactate dehydrogenase increase. Inflammation For mortality, summary sensitivity of a C-reactive protein increase was 76% (95% CI 73% to 79%) at median specificity, 59% (low-certainty evidence). For deterioration, summary sensitivity was 78% (95% CI 67% to 86%) at median specificity, 72% (very low-certainty evidence). For the combined outcome of mortality or deterioration, or both, summary sensitivity was 70% (95% CI 49% to 85%) at median specificity, 60% (very low-certainty evidence). For mortality, summary sensitivity of an increase in neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was 69% (95% CI 66% to 72%) at median specificity, 63% (very low-certainty evidence). For deterioration, summary sensitivity was 75% (95% CI 59% to 87%) at median specificity, 71% (very low-certainty evidence). For mortality, summary sensitivity of a decrease in lymphocyte count was 67% (95% CI 56% to 77%) at median specificity, 61% (very low-certainty evidence). For deterioration, summary sensitivity of a decrease in lymphocyte count was 69% (95% CI 60% to 76%) at median specificity, 67% (very low-certainty evidence). For the combined outcome, summary sensitivity was 83% (95% CI 67% to 92%) at median specificity, 29% (very low-certainty evidence). For mortality, summary sensitivity of a lactate dehydrogenase increase was 82% (95% CI 66% to 91%) at median specificity, 60% (very low-certainty evidence). For deterioration, summary sensitivity of a lactate dehydrogenase increase was 79% (95% CI 76% to 82%) at median specificity, 66% (low-certainty evidence). For the combined outcome, summary sensitivity was 69% (95% CI 51% to 82%) at median specificity, 62% (very low-certainty evidence). Hypercoagulability For mortality, summary sensitivity of a d-dimer increase was 70% (95% CI 64% to 76%) at median specificity of 56% (very low-certainty evidence). For deterioration, summary sensitivity was 65% (95% CI 56% to 74%) at median specificity of 63% (very low-certainty evidence). For the combined outcome, summary sensitivity was 65% (95% CI 52% to 76%) at median specificity of 54% (very low-certainty evidence). To predict mortality, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio increase had higher accuracy compared to d-dimer increase (RDOR (diagnostic Odds Ratio) 2.05, 95% CI 1.30 to 3.24), C-reactive protein increase (RDOR 2.64, 95% CI 2.09 to 3.33), and lymphocyte count decrease (RDOR 2.63, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.46). D-dimer increase had higher accuracy compared to lymphocyte count decrease (RDOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.80), C-reactive protein increase (RDOR 1.31, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.65), and lactate dehydrogenase increase (RDOR 1.42, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.90). Additionally, lactate dehydrogenase increase had higher accuracy compared to lymphocyte count decrease (RDOR 1.30, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.49). To predict deterioration to severe disease, C-reactive protein increase had higher accuracy compared to d-dimer increase (RDOR 1.76, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.50). The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio increase had higher accuracy compared to d-dimer increase (RDOR 2.77, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.84). Lastly, lymphocyte count decrease had higher accuracy compared to d-dimer increase (RDOR 2.10, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.07) and lactate dehydrogenase increase (RDOR 2.22, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.26)., Authors' Conclusions: Laboratory tests, associated with hypercoagulability and hyperinflammatory response, were better at predicting severe disease and mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 compared to other laboratory tests. However, to safely rule out severe disease, tests should have high sensitivity (> 90%), and none of the identified laboratory tests met this criterion. In clinical practice, a more comprehensive assessment of a patient's health status is usually required by, for example, incorporating these laboratory tests into clinical prediction rules together with clinical symptoms, radiological findings, and patient's characteristics., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: Many interventions, especially those linked to open science, have been proposed to improve reproducibility in science. To what extent these propositions are based on scientific evidence from empirical evaluations is not clear., Aims: The primary objective is to identify Open Science interventions that have been formally investigated regarding their influence on reproducibility and replicability. A secondary objective is to list any facilitators or barriers reported and to identify gaps in the evidence., Methods: We will search broadly by using electronic bibliographic databases, broad internet search, and contacting experts in the field of reproducibility, replicability, and open science. Any study investigating interventions for their influence on the reproducibility and replicability of research will be selected, including those studies additionally investigating drivers and barriers to the implementation and effectiveness of interventions. Studies will first be selected by title and abstract (if available) and then by reading the full text by at least two independent reviewers. We will analyze existing scientific evidence using scoping review and evidence gap mapping methodologies., Results: The results will be presented in interactive evidence maps, summarized in a narrative synthesis, and serve as input for subsequent research., Review Registration: This protocol has been pre-registered on OSF under doi https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/D65YS., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2024 Dudda LA et al.)

Objective: Asthma control is generally monitored by assessing symptoms and lung function. However, optimal treatment is also dependent on the type and extent of airway inflammation. Fraction of exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) is a noninvasive biomarker of type 2 airway inflammation, but its effectiveness in guiding asthma treatment remains disputed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to obtain summary estimates of the effectiveness of FeNO-guided asthma treatment., Design: We updated a Cochrane systematic review from 2016. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. Inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Subgroup analyses were performed based on asthma severity, asthma control, allergy/atopy, pregnancy and obesity., Data Sources: The Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register was searched on 9 May 2023., Eligibility Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of a FeNO-guided treatment versus usual (symptom-guided) treatment in adult asthma patients., Results: We included 12 RCTs (2,116 patients), all showing high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Five RCTs reported support from a FeNO manufacturer. FeNO-guided treatment probably reduces the number of patients having ≥1 exacerbation (OR = 0.61; 95%CI 0.44 to 0.83; six RCTs; GRADE moderate certainty) and exacerbation rate (RR = 0.67; 95%CI 0.54 to 0.82; six RCTs; moderate certainty), and may slightly improve Asthma Control Questionnaire score (MD = -0.10; 95%CI -0.18 to -0.02, six RCTs; low certainty), however, this change is unlikely to be clinically important. An effect on severe exacerbations, quality of life, FEV1, treatment dosage and FeNO values could not be demonstrated. There were no indications that effectiveness is different in subgroups of patients, although evidence for subgroup analysis was limited., Conclusions: FeNO-guided asthma treatment probably results in fewer exacerbations but may not have clinically important effects on other asthma outcomes., (© 2023 The Authors. Clinical & Experimental Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) substantially contributes to disability and death in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) patients; however, its pathophysiology is incompletely understood and diagnostic and therapeutic strategies are lacking. Biomarkers may help to elucidate the pathophysiology, optimize early diagnosis, or provide treatment targets. We systematically searched PubMed and Embase on October 13, 2021, for studies that evaluated at least one laboratory biomarker in patients with DCI, using the most up-to-date definition of DCI as proposed by a panel of experts in 2010. Quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment tool. Biomarkers of clinical and radiological DCI were analyzed separately. Results were meta-analyzed if possible, otherwise narratively reviewed. Biomarkers were classified as significant, inconclusive, or nonsignificant. We defined validated biomarkers as those with significant results in meta-analyses, or in at least two studies using similar methodologies within the same time interval after SAH. The search yielded 209 articles with 724 different biomarkers; 166 studies evaluated 646 biomarkers of clinical DCI, of which 141 were significant and 7 were validated biomarkers (haptoglobulin 2-1 and 2-2, ADAMTS13, vWF, NLR, P-selectin, F2-isoprostane); 78 studies evaluated 165 biomarkers of radiological DCI, of which 63 were significant and 1 was a validated biomarker (LPR). Hence, this review provides a selection of seven biomarkers of clinical DCI and one biomarker of radiological DCI as most promising biomarkers of DCI. Future research should focus on determining the exact predictive, diagnostic, and therapeutic potentials of these biomarkers., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023, The Authors.)

Background: A growing global shortage of health workers is limiting access to health care, especially in resource-limited countries. Family participation in hospital care could enhance care while tackling health worker shortages. With the same resources, it might deliver additional and more personalised care. This review assessed the effect and safety of family participation interventions in the care of hospitalised adults in resource-limited settings and, ultimately, if it is a viable strategy to tackle health worker shortages., Methods: For this systematic review, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Global Health Library were searched from inception till April 7, 2022. Clinical studies were included if they described a family participation intervention for hospitalised adults, were performed in a low- or middle-income country and reported on a patient-related outcome. Data were collected on patient, family, staff and health service-related outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed with the ROB2 and ROBINS-I tool., Results: From 4444 studies, six were included for narrative synthesis, with a total of 1794 participants. Four studies were performed in Asia and two in Africa; all were published between 2017 and 2022. In-hospital family participation interventions aimed at medication administration and adherence, delirium prevention, and palliative cancer care were successful in significantly improving patient outcomes. Involving family in post-stroke rehabilitation interventions showed no significant effect on mortality and long-term disability. Few data were reported on participating family members' outcomes or hospital staffing issues. None of the included studies showed harm from family participation., Conclusions: The limited data suggest that family participation can be effective and safe in specific contexts. However, more research is needed to determine the effect of family participation and justify further implementation. Family participation research for enhancing care while tackling health worker shortages should be a collaborative priority of researchers, health care professionals, funding agencies and policymakers., Registration: PROSPERO registration No. CRD42020205878., Competing Interests: Disclosure of interest: The authors completed the ICMJE Disclosure of Interest Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and disclose no relevant interests., (Copyright © 2023 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this paper is to summarize all available evidence from systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative nonrandomized studies (NRS) on the association between nutrition and antioxidant, vitamin, and mineral supplements and the development or progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane register CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase were searched and studies published between January 2015 and May 2021 were included. The certainty of evidence was assessed according to the GRADE methodology. The main outcome measures were development of AMD, progression of AMD, and side effects. We included 7 systematic reviews, 7 RCTs, and 13 NRS. A high consumption of specific nutrients, i.e. β-carotene, lutein and zeaxanthin, copper, folate, magnesium, vitamin A, niacin, vitamin B6, vitamin C, docosahexaenoic acid, and eicosapentaenoic acid, was associated with a lower risk of progression of early to late AMD (high certainty of evidence). Use of antioxidant supplements and adherence to a Mediterranean diet, characterized by a high consumption of vegetables, whole grains, and nuts and a low consumption of red meat, were associated with a decreased risk of progression of early to late AMD (moderate certainty of evidence). A high consumption of alcohol was associated with a higher risk of developing AMD (moderate certainty of evidence). Supplementary vitamin C, vitamin E, or β-carotene were not associated with the development of AMD, and supplementary omega-3 fatty acids were not associated with progression to late AMD (high certainty of evidence). Research in the last 35 years included in our overview supports that a high intake of specific nutrients, the use of antioxidant supplements and adherence to a Mediterranean diet decrease the risk of progression of early to late AMD., (© 2022 The Authors. Acta Ophthalmologica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Background: The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology., Objectives: To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases., Search Methods: The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples)., Data Collection and Analysis: We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria., Main Results: We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection., Authors' Conclusions: Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

This systematic review aimed to comparatively evaluate the efficacy and safety of maxillomandibular advancement (MMA) and upper airway stimulation (UAS) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treatment. A MEDLINE and Embase database search of articles on MMA and/or UAS for OSA was conducted. Twenty-one MMA studies and nine UAS studies were included. All the MMA studies demonstrated a reduction in apnea hypopnea index (AHI) postoperatively, and success rates ranged from 41.1% to 100%. Ten MMA studies reported pre- and postoperative Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS), and all but one study demonstrated a reduction in ESS. In the UAS studies, all but one demonstrated a reduction in AHI, and success rates ranged from 26.7% to 77.8%. In the eight UAS studies reporting pre- and postoperative ESS, an ESS reduction was demonstrated. No studies reported any deaths related to MMA or UAS. The most common postoperative complications after MMA and UAS were facial paresthesia in the mandibular area and discomfort due to electrical stimulation, respectively. This systematic review suggests that both MMA and UAS are effective and generally safe therapies for OSA. However, due to the limitations of the included studies, there is no evidence yet to directly compare these two procedures in OSA treatment.

Background: In patients with interstitial lung diseases (ILD), histopathological input is often required to obtain a diagnosis. Surgical lung biopsy (SLB) is considered the reference standard, but many patients are clinically unfit to undergo this invasive procedure, and adverse events, length of hospitalisation and costs are considerable. This European Respiratory Society (ERS) guideline provides evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the role of transbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC) in obtaining tissue-based diagnosis in patients with undiagnosed ILD., Methods: The ERS Task Force consisted of clinical experts in the field of ILD and/or TBLC and methodological experts. Four PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) questions and two narrative questions were formulated. Systematic literature searches were performed in MEDLINE and Embase (up to June 2021). GRADE (Grading, Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was applied., Results: In patients with undiagnosed ILD and an indication to obtain histopathological data: 1) TBLC is suggested as a replacement test in patients considered eligible to undergo SLB, 2) TBLC is suggested in patients not considered eligible to undergo SLB, 3) SLB is suggested as an add-on test in patients with a non-informative TBLC, 4) no recommendation is made for or against a second TBLC in patients with a non-informative TBLC and 5) TBLC operators should undergo training, but no recommendation is made for the type of training required., Conclusions: TBLC provides important diagnostic information in patients with undiagnosed ILD. Diagnostic yield is lower compared to SLB, at reduced serious adverse events and length of hospitalisation. Certainty of the evidence is mostly "very low"., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: L. Hagmeyer has received honoraria for lectures and presentations from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, and participated in advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche. J. Hetzel has received honoraria for lectures and presentations from Erbe and GlaxoSmithKline, and research support from Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca. A. Morais has received honoraria for presentations from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Sanofi, and research grants from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline. S. Tomassetti has received honoraria for presentations from Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim. L.K. Troy has received honoraria for presentations from Boehringer Ingelheim, has been a member of an advisory board for Roche, and has received research support from Erbe. A.U. Wells has received personal fees from Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim. T. Tonia acts as an ERS methodologist. V. Poletti has received honoraria for lectures and presentations from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche and Erbe, and participated in advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche and Ambu. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright ©The authors 2022. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.)

Background: Various studies have evaluated the infection of Ixodes ticks and humans with the relapsing fever spirochaete Borrelia miyamotoi. However, to our knowledge, the prevalence of infection and disease has not been assessed systematically. We aimed to examine the prevalence of B miyamotoi in Ixodes ticks and humans, and the disease it can cause, in the northern hemisphere., Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed and Web of Science up to March 1, 2021. Studies assessing Ixodes tick infection published since Jan 1, 2011 were eligible, whereas no time limitation was placed on reports of human infection and disease. We extracted B miyamotoi test positivity ratios and used a random-effects model to calculate estimated proportions of infected ticks, infected humans, and human disease with 95% CI. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021268996., Findings: We identified 730 studies through database searches and 316 additional studies that referenced two seminal articles on B miyamotoi. Of these 1046 studies, 157 were included in the review, reporting on 165 637 questing ticks, 45 608 unique individuals, and 504 well described cases of B miyamotoi disease in humans. In ticks, the highest prevalence of B miyamotoi was observed in Ixodes persulcatus (2·8%, 95% CI 2·4-3·1) and the lowest in Ixodes pacificus (0·7%, 0·6-0·8). The overall seroprevalence in humans was 4·4% (2·8-6·3), with significantly (p<0·0001) higher seroprevalences in the high-risk group (4·6%, 2·6-7·1), participants with confirmed or suspected Lyme borreliosis (4·8%, 1·8-8·8), and individuals suspected of having a different tick-borne disease (11·9%, 5·6-19·9) than in healthy controls (1·3%, 0·4-2·8). Participants suspected of having a different tick-borne disease tested positive for B miyamotoi by PCR significantly more often than did the high-risk group (p=0·025), with individuals in Asia more likely to test positive than those in the USA (odds ratio 14·63 [95% CI 2·80-76·41])., Interpretation: B miyamotoi disease should be considered an emerging infectious disease, especially in North America and Asia. Prospective studies and increased awareness are required to obtain further insights into the burden of disease., Funding: ZonMW and the European Regional Development Fund (Interreg)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Knowledge gaps regarding hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) are substantial. We aimed to systematically identify and map recent evidence addressing the top 10 priority questions for HG, as published in 2021 in a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership., Design: Systematic evidence map., Methods: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE on 12 January 2021 and CINAHL on 22 February 2021 with search terms hyperemesis gravidarum, pernicious vomiting in pregnancy and their synonyms. Results were limited to 2009 onwards. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts to assess whether the studies addressed a top 10 priority questions for HG. Differences were discussed until consensus was reached. Publications were allocated to one or more top 10 research questions. Study design was noted, as was patient or public involvement. Two reviewers extracted data synchronously and both cross-checked 10%. Extracted data were imported into EPPI-Reviewer software to create an evidence map., Outcome Measures: The number and design of studies in the search yield, displayed per the published 10 priority questions., Results: Searches returned 4338 results for screening; 406 publications were included in the evidence map. 136 publications addressed multiple questions. Numerous studies address the immediate and long-term outcomes or possible markers for HG (question 8 and 9, respectively 164 and 82 studies). Very few studies seek a possible cure for HG (question 1, 8 studies), preventative treatment (question 4, 2 studies) or how to achieve nutritional requirements of pregnancy (question 10, 17 studies). Case reports/series were most numerous with 125 (30.7%) included. Few qualitative studies (9, 2.2%) were identified. 25 (6.1%) systematic reviews addressed eight questions, or aspects of them. 31 (7.6%) studies included patient involvement., Conclusions: There are significant gaps and overlap in the current HG literature addressing priority questions. Researchers and funders should direct their efforts at addressing the gaps in the top 10 questions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: With the exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SR), there is a high potential for overlapping and redundant duplication of work. Prospective protocol registration gives the opportunity to assess the added value of a new study or review, thereby potentially reducing research waste and simultaneously increasing transparency and research quality. The PROSPERO database for SR protocol registration was launched 10 years ago. This study aims to assess the proportion SRs of intervention studies with a protocol registration (or publication) and explore associations of SR characteristics with protocol registration status., Methods: PubMed was searched for SRs of human intervention studies published in January 2020 and January 2021. After random-stratified sampling and eligibility screening, data extraction on publication and journal characteristics, and protocol registration status, was performed. Both descriptive and multivariable comparative statistical analyses were performed., Results: A total of 357 SRs (2020: n = 163; 2021: n = 194) were included from a random sample of 1267 publications. Of the published SRs, 38% had a protocol. SRs that reported using PRISMA as a reporting guideline had higher odds of having a protocol than publications that did not report PRISMA (OR 2.71; 95% CI: 1.21 to 6.09). SRs with a higher journal impact factor had higher odds of having a protocol (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25). Publications from Asia had a lower odds of having a protocol (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80, reference category = Europe). Of the 33 SRs published in journals that endorse PROSPERO, 45% did not have a protocol. Most SR protocols were registered in PROSPERO (n = 129; 96%)., Conclusions: We found that 38% of recently published SRs of interventions reported a registered or published protocol. Protocol registration was significantly associated with a higher impact factor of the journal publishing the SR and a more frequent self-reported use of the PRISMA guidelines. In some parts of the world, SR protocols are more often registered or published than others. To guide strategies to increase the uptake of SR protocol registration, further research is needed to gain understanding of the benefits and informativeness of SRs protocols among different stakeholders., Systematic Review Registration: osf.io/9kj7r/., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020., Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design., Search Methods: We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status., Main Results: We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed., Authors' Conclusions: Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: COVID-19 illness is highly variable, ranging from infection with no symptoms through to pneumonia and life-threatening consequences. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of sense of smell (anosmia) or taste (ageusia), can help flag early on if the disease is present. Such information could be used either to rule out COVID-19 disease, or to identify people who need to go for COVID-19 diagnostic tests. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020., Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19., Search Methods: We undertook electronic searches up to 10 June 2021 in the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We used artificial intelligence text analysis to conduct an initial classification of documents. We did not apply any language restrictions., Selection Criteria: Studies were eligible if they included people with clinically suspected COVID-19, or recruited known cases with COVID-19 and also controls without COVID-19 from a single-gate cohort. Studies were eligible when they recruited people presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies that included people who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards., Data Collection and Analysis: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract, and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist, and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Analyses were restricted to prospective studies only. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary prospective studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable., Main Results: We identified 90 studies; for this update we focused on the results of 42 prospective studies with 52,608 participants. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 3.7% to 60.6% with a median of 27.4%. Thirty-five studies were set in emergency departments or outpatient test centres (46,878 participants), three in primary care settings (1230 participants), two in a mixed population of in- and outpatients in a paediatric hospital setting (493 participants), and two overlapping studies in nursing homes (4007 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild COVID-19 disease from COVID-19 pneumonia, so we present the results for both conditions together. Twelve studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because they used a high level of preselection to decide whether reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was needed, or because they enrolled a non-consecutive sample, or because they excluded individuals while they were part of the study base. We rated 36 of the 42 studies as high risk of bias for the index tests because there was little or no detail on how, by whom and when, the symptoms were measured. For most studies, eligibility for testing was dependent on the local case definition and testing criteria that were in effect at the time of the study, meaning most people who were included in studies had already been referred to health services based on the symptoms that we are evaluating in this review. The applicability of the results of this review iteration improved in comparison with the previous reviews. This version has more studies of people presenting to ambulatory settings, which is where the majority of assessments for COVID-19 take place. Only three studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 96 symptoms or combinations of signs and symptoms. Evidence on individual signs as diagnostic tests was rarely reported, so this review reports mainly on the diagnostic value of symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. RT-PCR was the most often used reference standard (40/42 studies). Only cough (11 studies) had a summary sensitivity above 50% (62.4%, 95% CI 50.6% to 72.9%)); its specificity was low (45.4%, 95% CI 33.5% to 57.9%)). Presence of fever had a sensitivity of 37.6% (95% CI 23.4% to 54.3%) and a specificity of 75.2% (95% CI 56.3% to 87.8%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of cough was 1.14 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.25) and that of fever 1.52 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.10). Sore throat had a summary positive likelihood ratio of 0.814 (95% CI 0.714 to 0.929), which means that its presence increases the probability of having an infectious disease other than COVID-19. Dyspnoea (12 studies) and fatigue (8 studies) had a sensitivity of 23.3% (95% CI 16.4% to 31.9%) and 40.2% (95% CI 19.4% to 65.1%) respectively. Their specificity was 75.7% (95% CI 65.2% to 83.9%) and 73.6% (95% CI 48.4% to 89.3%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of dyspnoea was 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11) and that of fatigue 1.52 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.91), which means that the presence of fatigue slightly increases the probability of having COVID-19. Anosmia alone (7 studies), ageusia alone (5 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had summary sensitivities below 50% but summary specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a summary sensitivity of 26.4% (95% CI 13.8% to 44.6%) and a specificity of 94.2% (95% CI 90.6% to 96.5%). Ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 23.2% (95% CI 10.6% to 43.3%) and a specificity of 92.6% (95% CI 83.1% to 97.0%). Anosmia or ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 39.2% (95% CI 26.5% to 53.6%) and a specificity of 92.1% (95% CI 84.5% to 96.2%). The summary positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.55 (95% CI 3.46 to 5.97) and 4.99 (95% CI 3.22 to 7.75) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The summary positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was 3.14 (95% CI 1.79 to 5.51). Twenty-four studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining olfactory symptoms. By combining symptoms with other information such as contact or travel history, age, gender, and a local recent case detection rate, some multivariable prediction scores reached a sensitivity as high as 90%., Authors' Conclusions: Most individual symptoms included in this review have poor diagnostic accuracy. Neither absence nor presence of symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out the disease. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for the presence of COVID-19. The presence of cough also supports further testing. There is currently no evidence to support further testing with PCR in any individuals presenting only with upper respiratory symptoms such as sore throat, coryza or rhinorrhoea. Combinations of symptoms with other readily available information such as contact or travel history, or the local recent case detection rate may prove more useful and should be further investigated in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. The diagnostic accuracy of symptoms for COVID-19 is moderate to low and any testing strategy using symptoms as selection mechanism will result in both large numbers of missed cases and large numbers of people requiring testing. Which one of these is minimised, is determined by the goal of COVID-19 testing strategies, that is, controlling the epidemic by isolating every possible case versus identifying those with clinically important disease so that they can be monitored or treated to optimise their prognosis. The former will require a testing strategy that uses very few symptoms as entry criterion for testing, the latter could focus on more specific symptoms such as fever and anosmia., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: Our March 2021 edition of this review showed thoracic imaging computed tomography (CT) to be sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia. This new edition is an update of the review., Objectives: Our objectives were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in people with suspected COVID-19; assess the rate of positive imaging in people who had an initial reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negative result and a positive RT-PCR result on follow-up; and evaluate the accuracy of thoracic imaging for screening COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals. The secondary objective was to assess threshold effects of index test positivity on accuracy., Search Methods: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 17 February 2021. We did not apply any language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included diagnostic accuracy studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19. Studies had to assess chest CT, chest X-ray, or ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19, use a reference standard that included RT-PCR, and report estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which we could compute estimates. We excluded studies that used imaging as part of the reference standard and studies that excluded participants with normal index test results., Data Collection and Analysis: The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using QUADAS-2. We presented sensitivity and specificity per study on paired forest plots, and summarized pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate., Main Results: We included 98 studies in this review. Of these, 94 were included for evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in the evaluation of people with suspected COVID-19. Eight studies were included for assessing the rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results and positive RT-PCR results on follow-up, and 10 studies were included for evaluating the accuracy of thoracic imaging for imagining asymptomatic individuals. For all 98 included studies, risk of bias was high or unclear in 52 (53%) studies with respect to participant selection, in 64 (65%) studies with respect to reference standard, in 46 (47%) studies with respect to index test, and in 48 (49%) studies with respect to flow and timing. Concerns about the applicability of the evidence to: participants were high or unclear in eight (8%) studies; index test were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies; and reference standard were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies. Imaging in people with suspected COVID-19 We included 94 studies. Eighty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality, and seven studies evaluated two imaging modalities. All studies used RT-PCR alone or in combination with other criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms, positive contacts) as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (69 studies, 28285 participants, 14,342 (51%) cases), sensitivities ranged from 45% to 100%, and specificities from 10% to 99%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 86.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6 to 89.6), and pooled specificity was 78.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 82.3). Definition for index test positivity was a source of heterogeneity for sensitivity, but not specificity. Reference standard was not a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray (17 studies, 8529 participants, 5303 (62%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 44% to 94% and specificity from 24 to 93%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 73.1% (95% CI 64. to -80.5), and pooled specificity was 73.3% (95% CI 61.9 to 82.2). Definition for index test positivity was not found to be a source of heterogeneity. Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. For ultrasound of the lungs (15 studies, 2410 participants, 1158 (48%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 73% to 94% and the specificity ranged from 21% to 98%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 88.9% (95% CI 84.9 to 92.0), and the pooled specificity was 72.2% (95% CI 58.8 to 82.5). Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. Indirect comparisons of modalities evaluated across all 94 studies indicated that chest CT and ultrasound gave higher sensitivity estimates than X-ray (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.001, respectively). Chest CT and ultrasound gave similar sensitivities (P=0.42). All modalities had similar specificities (CT versus X-ray P = 0.36; CT versus ultrasound P = 0.32; X-ray versus ultrasound P = 0.89). Imaging in PCR-negative people who subsequently became positive For rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results, we included 8 studies (7 CT, 1 ultrasound) with a total of 198 participants suspected of having COVID-19, all of whom had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Most studies (7/8) evaluated CT. Of 177 participants with initially negative RT-PCR who had positive RT-PCR results on follow-up testing, 75.8% (95% CI 45.3 to 92.2) had positive CT findings. Imaging in asymptomatic PCR-positive people For imaging asymptomatic individuals, we included 10 studies (7 CT, 1 X-ray, 2 ultrasound) with a total of 3548 asymptomatic participants, of whom 364 (10%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (7 studies, 3134 participants, 315 (10%) cases), the pooled sensitivity was 55.7% (95% CI 35.4 to 74.3) and the pooled specificity was 91.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 95.7)., Authors' Conclusions: Chest CT and ultrasound of the lungs are sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for ruling out COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. The uncertainty resulting from high or unclear risk of bias and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Aims: Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a causal and independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). People with elevated Lp(a) are often prescribed statins as they also often show elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. While statins are well-established in lowering LDL-C, their effect on Lp(a) remains unclear. We evaluated the effect of statins compared to placebo on Lp(a) and the effects of different types and intensities of statin therapy on Lp(a)., Methods and Results: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials with a statin and placebo arm. Medline and EMBASE were searched until August 2019. Quality assessment of studies was done using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). Mean difference of absolute and percentage changes of Lp(a) in the statin vs. the placebo arms were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. We compared effects of different types and intensities of statin therapy using subgroup- and network meta-analyses. Certainty of the evidence was determined using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Overall, 39 studies (24 448 participants) were included. Mean differences (95% confidence interval) of absolute and percentage changes in the statin vs. the placebo arms were 1.1 mg/dL (0.5-1.6, P < 0.0001) and 0.1% (-3.6% to 4.0%, P = 0.95), respectively (moderate-certainty evidence). None of the types of statins changed Lp(a) significantly compared to placebo (very low- to high-certainty evidence), as well as intensities of statin therapy (low- to moderate-certainty evidence)., Conclusion: Statin therapy does not lead to clinically important differences in Lp(a) compared to placebo in patients at risk for CVD. Our findings suggest that in these patients, statin therapy will not change Lp(a)-associated CVD risk., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Nodding syndrome (NS) is a debilitating yet often neglected neurological disease affecting thousands of children in several sub-Saharan African countries. The cause of NS remains unknown, and effective treatment options are lacking. Moreover, knowledge regarding NS is scarce and is based on a limited number of publications, with no comprehensive overview published to date. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to summarise the current evidence and identify existing knowledge gaps in order to help clinicians, scientists, and policymakers develop guidelines for prioritising this severe condition. We searched the Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, and Global Health Library databases in accordance with the PRISMA extension for scoping review guidance and in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and methodology for a scoping review, using keywords describing NS. We then extracted and presented the original data regarding the epidemiology, aetiology, pathophysiology, clinical features, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of NS, as well as community perceptions and the psychosocial and economic impact of NS. Out of 1470 identified articles, a total of 69 were included in this scoping review. Major gaps exist in understanding the aetiology and pathogenesis of NS. Future research is urgently needed not only to address these gaps, but also to study the treatment options, epidemiology, and psychosocial and economic impacts of NS. Innovative interventions and rehabilitation programmes designed to address the psychosocial and economic burdens associated with NS are also urgently needed.

Local anesthesia is indispensable in dentistry. Worldwide, millions of local anesthetic injections are administered annually, and are generally considered safe invasive procedures. However, adverse effects are possible, of which dentists should be aware of. This scoping review aimed to provide an extensive overview of the reported literature on the adverse effects of dental local anesthesia. The types of papers, what is reported, and how they are reported were reviewed. Additionally, the incidence and duration of adverse effects and factors influencing their occurrence were also reviewed. An electronic search for relevant articles was performed in PubMed and Embase databases from inception to January 2, 2020. The titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers. The analysis was narrative, and no meta-analysis was performed. This study included 78 articles. Ocular and neurological adverse effects, allergies, hematomas, needle breakage, tissue necrosis, blanching, jaw ankylosis, osteomyelitis, and isolated atrial fibrillation have been described. Multiple adverse effects of dental local anesthesia have been reported in the literature. The results were heterogeneous, and detailed descriptions of the related procedures were lacking. Vital information concerning adverse effects, such as the dosage or type of anesthetic solution, or the type of needle used, was frequently missing. Therefore, high-quality research on this topic is needed. Finally, the adverse effects that are rarely encountered in real-world general practice are overrepresented in the literature., Competing Interests: DECLARATION OF INTEREST: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2021 Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.)

When performing a systematic review, researchers screen the articles retrieved after a broad search strategy one by one, which is time-consuming. Computerised support of this screening process has been applied with varying success. This is partly due to the dependency on large amounts of data to develop models that predict inclusion. In this paper, we present an approach to choose which data to use in model training and compare it with established approaches. We used a dataset of 50 Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews, and each was used as a target review. From the remaining 49 reviews, we selected those that most closely resembled the target review's clinical topic using the cosine similarity metric. Included and excluded studies from these selected reviews were then used to develop our prediction models. The performance of models trained on the selected reviews was compared against models trained on studies from all available reviews. The prediction models performed best with a larger number of reviews in the training set and on target reviews that had a research subject similar to other reviews in the dataset. Our approach using cosine similarity may reduce computational costs for model training and the duration of the screening process., (© 2021 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: To provide dental practitioners and researchers with a comprehensive and transparent evidence-based overview of the characteristics of literature regarding initiatives of robot technology in dentistry., Data: All articles in which robot technology in dentistry is described, except for non-scientific articles and articles containing secondary data (reviews). Amongst others, the following data were extracted: type of study, level of technological readiness, authors' professional background and the subject of interaction with the robot., Sources: Bibliographic databases PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were surveyed. A reference search was conducted. The search timeline was between January 1985 and October 2020., Study Selection: A total of 911 articles were screened on title and abstract of which 161 deemed eligible for inclusion. Another 71 articles were excluded mainly because of unavailability of full texts or the sole use of secondary data (reviews). Four articles were included after hand searching the reference lists. In total, 94 articles were included for analysis., Conclusions: Since 2013 an average of six articles per year concern robot initiatives in dentistry, mostly originating from East Asia (57%). The vast majority of research was categorized as either basic theoretical or basic applied research (80%). Technology readiness levels did not reach higher than three (proof of concept) in 55% of all articles. In 84%, the first author of the included articles had a technical background and in 36%, none of the authors had a dental or medical background. The overall quality of literature, especially in terms of clinical validation, should be considered as low., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To provide dental practitioners and researchers with a comprehensive and transparent evidence-based overview of physical robot initiatives in all fields of dentistry., Data: Articles published since 1985 concerning primary data on physical robot technology in dentistry were selected. Characteristics of the papers were extracted such as the respective field of dentistry, year of publication as well as a description of its usage., Sources: Bibliographic databases PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched. A hand search through reference lists of all included articles was performed., Study Selection: The search timeline was between January 1985 and October 2020. All types of scientific literature in all languages were included concerning fields of dentistry ranging from student training to implantology. Robot technology solely for the purpose of research and maxillofacial surgery were excluded. In total, 94 articles were included in this systematic review., Conclusions: This study provides a systematic overview of initiatives using robot technology in dentistry since its very beginning. While there were many interesting robot initiatives reported, the overall quality of the literature, in terms of clinical validation, is low. Scientific evidence regarding the benefits, results and cost-efficiency of commercially available robotic solutions in dentistry is lacking. The rise in availability of open source control systems, compliant robot systems and the design of dentistry-specific robot technology might facilitate the process of technological development in the near future. The authors are confident that robotics will provide useful solutions in the future but, strongly, encourage an evidence-based approach when adapting to new (robot) technology., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To systematically review evidence on effectiveness of contact tracing apps (CTAs) for SARS-CoV-2 on epidemiological and clinical outcomes., Design: Rapid systematic review., Data Sources: EMBASE (OVID), MEDLINE (PubMed), BioRxiv and MedRxiv were searched up to 28 October 2020., Study Selection: Studies, both empirical and model-based, assessing effect of CTAs for SARS-CoV-2 on reproduction number (R), total number of infections, hospitalisation rate, mortality rate, and other epidemiologically and clinically relevant outcomes, were eligible for inclusion., Data Extraction: Empirical and model-based studies were critically appraised using separate checklists. Data on type of study (ie, empirical or model-based), sample size, (simulated) time horizon, study population, CTA type (and associated interventions), comparator and outcomes assessed, were extracted. The most important findings were extracted and narratively summarised. Specifically for model-based studies, characteristics and values of important model parameters were collected., Results: 2140 studies were identified, of which 17 studies (2 empirical, 15 model-based studies) were eligible and included in this review. Both empirical studies were observational (non-randomised) studies and at high risk of bias, most importantly due to risk of confounding. Risk of bias of model-based studies was considered low for 12 out of 15 studies. Most studies demonstrated beneficial effects of CTAs on R, total number of infections and mortality rate. No studies assessed effect on hospitalisation. Effect size was dependent on model parameters values used, but in general, a beneficial effect was observed at CTA adoption rates of 20% or higher., Conclusions: CTAs have the potential to be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 related epidemiological and clinical outcomes, though effect size depends on other model parameters (eg, proportion of asymptomatic individuals, or testing delays), and interventions after CTA notification. Methodologically sound comparative empirical studies on effectiveness of CTAs are required to confirm findings from model-based studies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: A large proportion of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prescriptions, including those for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), are inappropriate. Our study purpose was to systematically review the effectiveness of de-implementation strategies aimed at reducing inappropriate PPI use for SUP in hospitalized, non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) patients., Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase databases (from inception to January 2020). Two authors independently screened references, performed data extraction, and critical appraisal. Randomized trials and comparative observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Criteria developed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group were used for critical appraisal. Besides the primary outcome (inappropriate PPI prescription or use), secondary outcomes included (adverse) pharmaceutical effects and healthcare use., Results: We included ten studies in this review. Most de-implementation strategies contained an educational component (meetings and/or materials), combined with either clinical guideline implementation (n = 5), audit feedback (n = 3), organizational culture (n = 4), or reminders (n = 1). One study evaluating the de-implementation strategy effectiveness showed a significant reduction (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.55) of new inappropriate PPI prescriptions. Out of five studies evaluating the effectiveness of de-implementing inappropriate PPI use, four found a significant reduction (RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.18-0.26 to RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.68-0.86). No significant differences in the occurrence of pharmaceutical effects (n = 1) and in length of stay (n = 3) were observed. Adverse pharmaceutical effects were reported in two studies and five studies reported on PPI or total drug costs. No pooled effect estimates were calculated because of large statistical heterogeneity between studies., Discussion: All identified studies reported mainly educational interventions in combination with one or multiple other intervention strategies and all interventions were targeted at providers. Most studies found a small to moderate reduction of (inappropriate) PPI prescriptions or use., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Multilevel surgery (MLS) and maxillomandibular advancement surgery (MMA) are two established options in surgical management of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), which target different levels of airway obstruction. The objective of this review was to comparatively evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of MMA and MLS in the treatment of OSA. MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for studies on MMA and/or MLS in OSA patients. Twenty MMA studies and 39 MLS studies were identified. OSA patients who underwent MMA showed significant improvements in AHI, LSAT, ODI, and ESS by -46.2/h, 13.5%, -30.3/h, and -8.5, respectively. The pooled rates of surgical success and cure for MMA were 85.0% and 46.3%, respectively. Patients who underwent MLS showed significant improvements in AHI, LSAT, ODI, and ESS by -24.7/h, 8.7%, -19.1/h, and -5.8, respectively. The pooled surgical success and cure rates for MLS were 65.1% and 28.1%, respectively. The rates of major complication of MMA and MLS were 3.2% and 1.1%, respectively, and the rate of minor complication of MMA was higher than that of MLS. We conclude that both MMA and MLS are effective treatment options for OSA. Compared to MLS, MMA may be more effective in improving OSA. However, the complication rate of MMA is higher., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

(1) Background: FibroTest™ is a multi-marker panel, suggested by guidelines as one of the surrogate markers with acceptable performance for detecting fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). A number of studies evaluating this test have been published after publication of the guidelines. This study aims to produce summary estimates of FibroTest™ diagnostic accuracy. (2) Methods: Five databases were searched for studies that evaluated FibroTest™ against liver biopsy as the reference standard in NAFLD patients. Two authors independently screened the references, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. Meta-analyses of the accuracy in detecting different levels of fibrosis were performed using the bivariate random-effects model and the linear mixed-effects multiple thresholds model. (3) Results: From ten included studies, seven were eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. Five studies were included in the meta-analysis of FibroTest™ in detecting advanced fibrosis and five in significant fibrosis, resulting in an AUC of 0.77 for both target conditions. The meta-analysis of three studies resulted in an AUC of 0.69 in detecting any fibrosis, while analysis of three other studies showed higher accuracy in cirrhosis (AUC: 0.92). (4) Conclusions: Our meta-analysis showed acceptable performance (AUC > 0.80) of FibroTest™ only in detecting cirrhosis. We observed more limited performance of the test in detecting significant and advanced fibrosis in NAFLD patients. Further primary studies with high methodological quality are required to validate the reliability of the test for detecting different fibrosis levels and to compare the performance of the test in different settings.

Background: Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission., Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups., Search Methods: Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID-19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria)., Data Collection and Analysis: Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS-2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status., Main Results: Seventy-eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre-prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays. We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (50%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (45%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 based on a single RT-PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID-19. Antigen tests Forty-eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%). At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self-testing. Rapid molecular assays Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer's instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset., Authors' Conclusions: Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID-19 diagnostics ('acceptable' sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT-PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice. Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self-testing) are required., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: The respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to present diagnostic challenges. Our 2020 edition of this review showed thoracic (chest) imaging to be sensitive and moderately specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this update, we include new relevant studies, and have removed studies with case-control designs, and those not intended to be diagnostic test accuracy studies., Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected COVID-19., Search Methods: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 30 September 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19 and that reported estimates of test accuracy or provided data from which we could compute estimates., Data Collection and Analysis: The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain-list. We presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity using paired forest plots, and we summarised pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented the uncertainty of accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Main Results: We included 51 studies with 19,775 participants suspected of having COVID-19, of whom 10,155 (51%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Forty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality each, and four studies evaluated two imaging modalities each. All studies used RT-PCR as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19, with 47 studies using only RT-PCR and four studies using a combination of RT-PCR and other criteria (such as clinical signs, imaging tests, positive contacts, and follow-up phone calls) as the reference standard. Studies were conducted in Europe (33), Asia (13), North America (3) and South America (2); including only adults (26), all ages (21), children only (1), adults over 70 years (1), and unclear (2); in inpatients (2), outpatients (32), and setting unclear (17). Risk of bias was high or unclear in thirty-two (63%) studies with respect to participant selection, 40 (78%) studies with respect to reference standard, 30 (59%) studies with respect to index test, and 24 (47%) studies with respect to participant flow. For chest CT (41 studies, 16,133 participants, 8110 (50%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 25.4% to 97.4%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 87.9% (95% CI 84.6 to 90.6) and the pooled specificity was 80.0% (95% CI 74.9 to 84.3). There was no statistical evidence indicating that reference standard conduct and definition for index test positivity were sources of heterogeneity for CT studies. Nine chest CT studies (2807 participants, 1139 (41%) cases) used the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) scoring system, which has five thresholds to define index test positivity. At a CO-RADS threshold of 5 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 41.5% to 77.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 67.0% (95% CI 56.4 to 76.2); the specificity ranged from 83.5% to 96.2%; and the pooled specificity was 91.3% (95% CI 87.6 to 94.0). At a CO-RADS threshold of 4 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 92.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 83.5% (95% CI 74.4 to 89.7); the specificity ranged from 77.2% to 90.4% and the pooled specificity was 83.6% (95% CI 80.5 to 86.4). For chest X-ray (9 studies, 3694 participants, 2111 (57%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 51.9% to 94.4% and specificity ranged from 40.4% to 88.9%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 80.6% (95% CI 69.1 to 88.6) and the pooled specificity was 71.5% (95% CI 59.8 to 80.8). For ultrasound of the lungs (5 studies, 446 participants, 211 (47%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 68.2% to 96.8% and specificity ranged from 21.3% to 78.9%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 86.4% (95% CI 72.7 to 93.9) and the pooled specificity was 54.6% (95% CI 35.3 to 72.6). Based on an indirect comparison using all included studies, chest CT had a higher specificity than ultrasound. For indirect comparisons of chest CT and chest X-ray, or chest X-ray and ultrasound, the data did not show differences in specificity or sensitivity., Authors' Conclusions: Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Ultrasound is sensitive but not specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for excluding COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should pre-define positive imaging findings, include direct comparisons of the various modalities of interest in the same participant population, and implement improved reporting practices., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: The clinical implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection are highly variable. Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst the infection can cause mild to moderate COVID-19 and COVID-19 pneumonia in others. This can lead to some people requiring intensive care support and, in some cases, to death, especially in older adults. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of smell or taste, and signs such as oxygen saturation are the first and most readily available diagnostic information. Such information could be used to either rule out COVID-19, or select patients for further testing. This is an update of this review, the first version of which published in July 2020., Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19., Search Methods: For this review iteration we undertook electronic searches up to 15 July 2020 in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions., Selection Criteria: Studies were eligible if they included patients with clinically suspected COVID-19, or if they recruited known cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Studies were eligible when they recruited patients presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies in hospitalised patients were only included if symptoms and signs were recorded on admission or at presentation. Studies including patients who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards., Data Collection and Analysis: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract stage and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable., Main Results: We identified 44 studies including 26,884 participants in total. Prevalence of COVID-19 varied from 3% to 71% with a median of 21%. There were three studies from primary care settings (1824 participants), nine studies from outpatient testing centres (10,717 participants), 12 studies performed in hospital outpatient wards (5061 participants), seven studies in hospitalised patients (1048 participants), 10 studies in the emergency department (3173 participants), and three studies in which the setting was not specified (5061 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild from severe COVID-19, so we present the results for all disease severities together. Fifteen studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because inclusion in the studies depended on the applicable testing and referral protocols, which included many of the signs and symptoms under study in this review. This may have especially influenced the sensitivity of those features used in referral protocols, such as fever and cough. Five studies only included participants with pneumonia on imaging, suggesting that this is a highly selected population. In an additional 12 studies, we were unable to assess the risk for selection bias. This makes it very difficult to judge the validity of the diagnostic accuracy of the signs and symptoms from these included studies. The applicability of the results of this review update improved in comparison with the original review. A greater proportion of studies included participants who presented to outpatient settings, which is where the majority of clinical assessments for COVID-19 take place. However, still none of the studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 84 signs and symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. Only cough (25 studies) and fever (7 studies) had a pooled sensitivity of at least 50% but specificities were moderate to low. Cough had a sensitivity of 67.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 59.8% to 74.1%) and specificity of 35.0% (95% CI 28.7% to 41.9%). Fever had a sensitivity of 53.8% (95% CI 35.0% to 71.7%) and a specificity of 67.4% (95% CI 53.3% to 78.9%). The pooled positive likelihood ratio of cough was only 1.04 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.11) and that of fever 1.65 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.93). Anosmia alone (11 studies), ageusia alone (6 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had sensitivities below 50% but specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a pooled sensitivity of 28.0% (95% CI 17.7% to 41.3%) and a specificity of 93.4% (95% CI 88.3% to 96.4%). Ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 24.8% (95% CI 12.4% to 43.5%) and a specificity of 91.4% (95% CI 81.3% to 96.3%). Anosmia or ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 41.0% (95% CI 27.0% to 56.6%) and a specificity of 90.5% (95% CI 81.2% to 95.4%). The pooled positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.25 (95% CI 3.17 to 5.71) and 4.31 (95% CI 3.00 to 6.18) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The pooled positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was only 2.88 (95% CI 2.02 to 4.09). Only two studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining fever and cough with other symptoms. These combinations had a specificity above 80%, but at the cost of very low sensitivity (< 30%)., Authors' Conclusions: The majority of individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic accuracy, although this should be interpreted in the context of selection bias and heterogeneity between studies. Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out COVID-19. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for COVID-19. The presence of fever or cough, given their high sensitivities, may also be useful to identify people for further testing. Prospective studies in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings, examining combinations of signs and symptoms to evaluate the syndromic presentation of COVID-19, are still urgently needed. Results from such studies could inform subsequent management decisions., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Objective: There are many uncertainties surrounding the aetiology, treatment and sequelae of hyperemesis gravidarum (HG). Prioritising research questions could reduce research waste, helping researchers and funders direct attention to those questions which most urgently need addressing. The HG priority setting partnership (PSP) was established to identify and rank the top 25 priority research questions important to both patients and clinicians., Methods: Following the James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology, an HG PSP steering group was established. Stakeholders representing patients, carers and multidisciplinary professionals completed an online survey to gather uncertainties. Eligible uncertainties related to HG. Uncertainties on nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and those on complementary treatments were not eligible. Questions were verified against the evidence. Two rounds of prioritisation included an online ranking survey and a 1-hour consensus workshop., Results: 1009 participants (938 patients/carers, 118 professionals with overlap between categories) submitted 2899 questions. Questions originated from participants in 26 different countries, and people from 32 countries took part in the first prioritisation stage. 66 unique questions emerged, which were evidence checked according to the agreed protocol. 65 true uncertainties were narrowed via an online ranking survey to 26 unranked uncertainties. The consensus workshop was attended by 19 international patients and clinicians who reached consensus on the top 10 questions for international researchers to address. More patients than professionals took part in the surveys but were equally distributed during the consensus workshop. Participants from low-income and middle-income countries noted that the priorities may be different in their settings., Conclusions: By following the JLA method, a prioritised list of uncertainties relevant to both HG patients and their clinicians has been identified which can inform the international HG research agenda, funders and policy-makers. While it is possible to conduct an international PSP, results from developed countries may not be as relevant in low-income and middle-income countries., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CRD is chair of the charity Pregnancy Sickness Support, which funded the JLA aspect of this project. RG and MO are trustees, KL is an employee and EW is a volunteer for Pregnancy Sickness Support. CRD and CN-P are trustees of the Bikkja Trust which funded the consensus workshop and provided some travel bursaries. CN-P has received consultancy and speaker fees from Alliance Pharma., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to present diagnostic challenges. Early research showed thoracic (chest) imaging to be sensitive but not specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, this is a rapidly developing field and these findings need to be re-evaluated in the light of new research. This is the first update of this 'living systematic review'. This update focuses on people suspected of having COVID-19 and excludes studies with only confirmed COVID-19 participants., Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected COVID-19., Search Methods: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 22 June 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included studies of all designs that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19, and which reported estimates of test accuracy, or provided data from which estimates could be computed. When studies used a variety of reference standards, we retained the classification of participants as COVID-19 positive or negative as used in the study., Data Collection and Analysis: We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain-list independently, in duplicate. We categorised included studies into three groups based on classification of index test results: studies that reported specific criteria for index test positivity (group 1); studies that did not report specific criteria, but had the test reader(s) explicitly classify the imaging test result as either COVID-19 positive or negative (group 2); and studies that reported an overview of index test findings, without explicitly classifying the imaging test as either COVID-19 positive or negative (group 3). We presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity using paired forest plots, and summarised in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Main Results: We included 34 studies: 30 were cross-sectional studies with 8491 participants suspected of COVID-19, of which 4575 (54%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19; four were case-control studies with 848 cases and controls in total, of which 464 (55%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest CT was evaluated in 31 studies (8014 participants, 4224 (53%) cases), chest X-ray in three studies (1243 participants, 784 (63%) cases), and ultrasound of the lungs in one study (100 participants, 31 (31%) cases). Twenty-six per cent (9/34) of all studies were available only as preprints. Nineteen studies were conducted in Asia, 10 in Europe, four in North America and one in Australia. Sixteen studies included only adults, 15 studies included both adults and children and one included only children. Two studies did not report the ages of participants. Twenty-four studies included inpatients, four studies included outpatients, while the remaining six studies were conducted in unclear settings. The majority of included studies had a high or unclear risk of bias with respect to participant selection, index test, reference standard, and participant flow. For chest CT in suspected COVID-19 participants (31 studies, 8014 participants, 4224 (53%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 57.4% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 0% to 96.0%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT in suspected COVID-19 participants was 89.9% (95% CI 85.7 to 92.9) and the pooled specificity was 61.1% (95% CI 42.3 to 77.1). Sensitivity analyses showed that when the studies from China were excluded, the studies from other countries demonstrated higher specificity compared to the overall included studies. When studies that did not classify index tests as positive or negative for COVID-19 (group 3) were excluded, the remaining studies (groups 1 and 2) demonstrated higher specificity compared to the overall included studies. Sensitivity analyses limited to cross-sectional studies, or studies where at least two reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests were conducted if the first was negative, did not substantively alter the accuracy estimates. We did not identify publication status as a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray in suspected COVID-19 participants (3 studies, 1243 participants, 784 (63%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 56.9% to 89.0% and specificity from 11.1% to 88.9%. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound of the lungs in suspected COVID-19 participants (1 study, 100 participants, 31 (31%) cases) were 96.8% and 62.3%, respectively. We could not perform a meta-analysis for chest X-ray or ultrasound due to the limited number of included studies., Authors' Conclusions: Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in suspected patients, meaning that CT may have limited capability in differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. However, we are limited in our confidence in these results due to the poor study quality and the heterogeneity of included studies. Because of limited data, accuracy estimates of chest X-ray and ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of suspected COVID-19 cases should be carefully interpreted. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should pre-define positive imaging findings, include direct comparisons of the various modalities of interest on the same participant population, and implement improved reporting practices. Planned updates of this review will aim to: increase precision around the accuracy estimates for chest CT (ideally with low risk of bias studies); obtain further data to inform accuracy of chest X-rays and ultrasound; and obtain data to further fulfil secondary objectives (e.g. 'threshold' effects, comparing accuracy estimates across different imaging modalities) to inform the utility of imaging along different diagnostic pathways., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarise the literature regarding the immunogenicity of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) and pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines (PPSV) in adult people living with HIV (PLWH) in the era of advanced combination antiretroviral therapy (cART)., Methods: The systematic review protocol was published online (PROSPERO ID: CRD 42020153137). We searched Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and the Global Health Library for publications from 2000 to June 11, 2020. We included all studies in adult PLWH that reported vaccine immunogenicity outcomes. The primary outcome was seroconversion rate (SCR) after PCV, PPSV and PCV/PPSV combined. For random-effects meta-analysis, we included studies defining SCR as a  ≥ 2-fold increase in IgG from baseline, and reporting SCR for serotypes 6B, 14, or overall SCR, 1-3 months after vaccination., Findings: Our search identified 1597 unique studies, of which 115 were eligible for full-text assessment. Of these, 39 met the inclusion criteria (11 RCTs; 28 cohort studies). A high degree of heterogeneity was observed. Nineteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled overall SCRs were 42% (95% CI 30-56%), 44% (95% CI 33-55%) and 57% (95% CI 50-63%) for PLWH who received PPSV, PCV or a combination of PCV/PPSV, respectively. Compared to PPSV alone, a combination of PCV/PPSV yielded higher SCRs (OR 2.24 95% CI 1.41- 3.58), whereas we did not observe a significant difference in SCR between PCV and PPSV23 alone. There were no statistically significant differences in geometric mean post-vaccination antibody concentrations between vaccination schedules. Vaccination at higher CD4 cell counts improved immunogenicity in 8/21 studies, especially when PCV was administered. No studies assessed the long-term immunogenicity of PCV followed by PPSV23. Quality of evidence ranged from poor ( n  = 19) to good quality ( n  = 7). A limited number of pneumococcal serotypes was assessed in the majority of studies., Interpretation: We show that the recommended immunisation schedule consisting of a combination of PCV13/PPSV23, is immunogenic in PLWH in the era of advanced cART. However, the durability of this vaccination schedule remains unknown and must be addressed in future research. Vaccination with PCV should be delayed until immunological recovery (CD4>200) in recently diagnosed PLWH for optimal immunogenicity. The evidence gathered here supports wide implementation of the combination of PCV/PPSV23 for all PLWH. We recommend reassessment of this strategy once higher-valent PCVs become available., Funding: HMGG is funded by a public research grant of ZonMw (project number 522004005)., Competing Interests: H.M. Garcia Garrido reports being funded by a public research grant from Zon MW, outside the submitted work. None of the other authors report a conflict of interest. All authors attest they meet the ICMJE criteria for authorship., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Background: Specific diagnostic tests to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and resulting COVID-19 disease are not always available and take time to obtain results. Routine laboratory markers such as white blood cell count, measures of anticoagulation, C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin, are used to assess the clinical status of a patient. These laboratory tests may be useful for the triage of people with potential COVID-19 to prioritize them for different levels of treatment, especially in situations where time and resources are limited., Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory testing as a triage test to determine if a person has COVID-19., Search Methods: On 4 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included both case-control designs and consecutive series of patients that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory testing as a triage test to determine if a person has COVID-19. The reference standard could be reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) alone; RT-PCR plus clinical expertise or and imaging; repeated RT-PCR several days apart or from different samples; WHO and other case definitions; and any other reference standard used by the study authors., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data from each included study. They also assessed the methodological quality of the studies, using QUADAS-2. We used the 'NLMIXED' procedure in SAS 9.4 for the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) meta-analyses of tests for which we included four or more studies. To facilitate interpretation of results, for each meta-analysis we estimated summary sensitivity at the points on the SROC curve that corresponded to the median and interquartile range boundaries of specificities in the included studies., Main Results: We included 21 studies in this review, including 14,126 COVID-19 patients and 56,585 non-COVID-19 patients in total. Studies evaluated a total of 67 different laboratory tests. Although we were interested in the diagnotic accuracy of routine tests for COVID-19, the included studies used detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection through RT-PCR as reference standard. There was considerable heterogeneity between tests, threshold values and the settings in which they were applied. For some tests a positive result was defined as a decrease compared to normal vaues, for other tests a positive result was defined as an increase, and for some tests both increase and decrease may have indicated test positivity. None of the studies had either low risk of bias on all domains or low concerns for applicability for all domains. Only three of the tests evaluated had a summary sensitivity and specificity over 50%. These were: increase in interleukin-6, increase in C-reactive protein and lymphocyte count decrease. Blood count Eleven studies evaluated a decrease in white blood cell count, with a median specificity of 93% and a summary sensitivity of 25% (95% CI 8.0% to 27%; very low-certainty evidence). The 15 studies that evaluated an increase in white blood cell count had a lower median specificity and a lower corresponding sensitivity. Four studies evaluated a decrease in neutrophil count. Their median specificity was 93%, corresponding to a summary sensitivity of 10% (95% CI 1.0% to 56%; low-certainty evidence). The 11 studies that evaluated an increase in neutrophil count had a lower median specificity and a lower corresponding sensitivity. The summary sensitivity of an increase in neutrophil percentage (4 studies) was 59% (95% CI 1.0% to 100%) at median specificity (38%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in monocyte count (4 studies) was 13% (95% CI 6.0% to 26%) at median specificity (73%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of a decrease in lymphocyte count (13 studies) was 64% (95% CI 28% to 89%) at median specificity (53%; low-certainty evidence). Four studies that evaluated a decrease in lymphocyte percentage showed a lower median specificity and lower corresponding sensitivity. The summary sensitivity of a decrease in platelets (4 studies) was 19% (95% CI 10% to 32%) at median specificity (88%; low-certainty evidence). Liver function tests The summary sensitivity of an increase in alanine aminotransferase (9 studies) was 12% (95% CI 3% to 34%) at median specificity (92%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in aspartate aminotransferase (7 studies) was 29% (95% CI 17% to 45%) at median specificity (81%) (low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of a decrease in albumin (4 studies) was 21% (95% CI 3% to 67%) at median specificity (66%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in total bilirubin (4 studies) was 12% (95% CI 3.0% to 34%) at median specificity (92%; very low-certainty evidence). Markers of inflammation The summary sensitivity of an increase in CRP (14 studies) was 66% (95% CI 55% to 75%) at median specificity (44%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in procalcitonin (6 studies) was 3% (95% CI 1% to 19%) at median specificity (86%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in IL-6 (four studies) was 73% (95% CI 36% to 93%) at median specificity (58%) (very low-certainty evidence). Other biomarkers The summary sensitivity of an increase in creatine kinase (5 studies) was 11% (95% CI 6% to 19%) at median specificity (94%) (low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in serum creatinine (four studies) was 7% (95% CI 1% to 37%) at median specificity (91%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in lactate dehydrogenase (4 studies) was 25% (95% CI 15% to 38%) at median specificity (72%; very low-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Although these tests give an indication about the general health status of patients and some tests may be specific indicators for inflammatory processes, none of the tests we investigated are useful for accurately ruling in or ruling out COVID-19 on their own. Studies were done in specific hospitalized populations, and future studies should consider non-hospital settings to evaluate how these tests would perform in people with milder symptoms., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Objectives: Embase is a biomedical and pharmacological bibliographic database of published literature, produced by Elsevier. In 2011, Embase introduced the Emtree term "diagnostic test accuracy study," after discussion with the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) community of Cochrane. The aim of this study is to investigate the performance of this Emtree term when used to retrieve diagnostic accuracy studies., Study Design and Setting: We first piloted a random selection of 1,000 titles from Embase and then repeated the process with 1,223 studies specifically limited to humans. Two researchers independently screened those for eligibility. From titles that were indicated as being relevant or potentially relevant by at least one assessor, the full texts were retrieved and screened. A third researcher retrieved the Emtree terms for each title and checked whether "diagnostic test accuracy study" was one of the attached Emtree terms. The results of both exercises were then cross-classified, and sensitivity and specificity of the Emtree term were estimated., Results: Our pilot set consisted of 1,000 studies, of which 20 (2.0%) were studies from which DTA data could be extracted. Thirteen studies had the label DTA study, of which five were indeed DTA studies. The final set consisted of 1,223 studies, of which 33 (2.7%) were DTA studies. Twenty studies were labeled as DTA study, of which fourteen indeed were DTA studies. This resulted in a sensitivity of 42.4% (95% CI: 25.5% to 60.8%) and a specificity of 99.5% (95% CI: 98.9% to 99.8%)., Conclusion: Although we planned to include a more focused set of studies in our second attempt, the percentage of DTA studies was similar in both attempts. The DTA label failed to retrieve most of the DTA studies and 30% of the studies labeled as being DTA study were in fact not DTA studies. The Emtree term DTA study does not meet the requirements to be useful for retrieving DTA studies accurately., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The diagnosis of infection by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presents major challenges. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing is used to diagnose a current infection, but its utility as a reference standard is constrained by sampling errors, limited sensitivity (71% to 98%), and dependence on the timing of specimen collection. Chest imaging tests are being used in the diagnosis of COVID-19 disease, or when RT-PCR testing is unavailable., Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of chest imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19., Search Methods: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 5 May 2020., Selection Criteria: We included studies of all designs that produce estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which estimates can be computed. We included two types of cross-sectional designs: a) where all patients suspected of the target condition enter the study through the same route and b) where it is not clear up front who has and who does not have the target condition, or where the patients with the target condition are recruited in a different way or from a different population from the patients without the target condition. When studies used a variety of reference standards, we included all of them., Data Collection and Analysis: We screened studies and extracted data independently, in duplicate. We also assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns independently, in duplicate, using the QUADAS-2 checklist and presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest plots, and summarised in tables. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Main Results: We included 84 studies, falling into two categories: studies with participants with confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19 at the time of recruitment (71 studies with 6331 participants) and studies with participants suspected of COVID-19 (13 studies with 1948 participants, including three case-control studies with 549 cases and controls). Chest CT was evaluated in 78 studies (8105 participants), chest X-ray in nine studies (682 COVID-19 cases), and chest ultrasound in two studies (32 COVID-19 cases). All evaluations of chest X-ray and ultrasound were conducted in studies with confirmed diagnoses only. Twenty-five per cent (21/84) of all studies were available only as preprints, 15/71 studies in the confirmed cases group and 6/13 of the studies in the suspected group. Among 71 studies that included confirmed cases, 41 studies had included symptomatic cases only, 25 studies had included cases regardless of their symptoms, five studies had included asymptomatic cases only, three of which included a combination of confirmed and suspected cases. Seventy studies were conducted in Asia, 2 in Europe, 2 in North America and one in South America. Fifty-one studies included inpatients while the remaining 24 studies were conducted in mixed or unclear settings. Risk of bias was high in most studies, mainly due to concerns about selection of participants and applicability. Among the 13 studies that included suspected cases, nine studies were conducted in Asia, and one in Europe. Seven studies included inpatients while the remaining three studies were conducted in mixed or unclear settings. In studies that included confirmed cases the pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 93.1% (95%CI: 90.2 - 95.0 (65 studies, 5759 cases); and for X-ray 82.1% (95%CI: 62.5 to 92.7 (9 studies, 682 cases). Heterogeneity judged by visual assessment of the ROC plots was considerable. Two studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound and both reported zero false negatives (with 10 and 22 participants having undergone ultrasound, respectively). These studies only reported True Positive and False Negative data, therefore it was not possible to pool and derive estimates of specificity. In studies that included suspected cases, the pooled sensitivity of CT was 86.2% (95%CI: 71.9 to 93.8 (13 studies, 2346 participants) and specificity was 18.1% (95%CI: 3.71 to 55.8). Heterogeneity judged by visual assessment of the forest plots was high. Chest CT may give approximately the same proportion of positive results for patients with and without a SARS-CoV-2 infection: the chances of getting a positive CT result are 86% (95% CI: 72 to 94) in patient with a SARS-CoV-2 infection and 82% (95% CI: 44 to 96) in patients without., Authors' Conclusions: The uncertainty resulting from the poor study quality and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results. Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive but not specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in suspected patients, meaning that CT may not be capable of differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. This low specificity could also be the result of the poor sensitivity of the reference standard (RT-PCR), as CT could potentially be more sensitive than RT-PCR in some cases. Because of limited data, accuracy estimates of chest X-ray and ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19 should be carefully interpreted. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should avoid cases-only studies and pre-define positive imaging findings. Planned updates of this review will aim to: increase precision around the accuracy estimates for CT (ideally with low risk of bias studies); obtain further data to inform accuracy of chest X rays and ultrasound; and continue to search for studies that fulfil secondary objectives to inform the utility of imaging along different diagnostic pathways., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify or rule out current infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current SARS-CoV-2 infection have the potential to allow earlier detection and isolation of confirmed cases compared to laboratory-based diagnostic methods, with the aim of reducing household and community transmission., Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection., Search Methods: On 25 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included studies of people with suspected current SARS-CoV-2 infection, known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results available within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established clinical diagnostic criteria)., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. One review author independently extracted study characteristics, which were checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently extracted 2x2 contingency table data and assessed risk of bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We present sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each test using paired forest plots. We pooled data using the bivariate hierarchical model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests, with simplifications when few studies were available. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer., Main Results: We included 22 publications reporting on a total of 18 study cohorts with 3198 unique samples, of which 1775 had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ten studies took place in North America, two in South America, four in Europe, one in China and one was conducted internationally. We identified data for eight commercial tests (four antigen and four molecular) and one in-house antigen test. Five of the studies included were only available as preprints. We did not find any studies at low risk of bias for all quality domains and had concerns about applicability of results across all studies. We judged patient selection to be at high risk of bias in 50% of the studies because of deliberate over-sampling of samples with confirmed COVID-19 infection and unclear in seven out of 18 studies because of poor reporting. Sixteen (89%) studies used only a single, negative RT-PCR to confirm the absence of COVID-19 infection, risking missing infection. There was a lack of information on blinding of index test (n = 11), and around participant exclusions from analyses (n = 10). We did not observe differences in methodological quality between antigen and molecular test evaluations. Antigen tests Sensitivity varied considerably across studies (from 0% to 94%): the average sensitivity was 56.2% (95% CI 29.5 to 79.8%) and average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.1% to 99.9%; based on 8 evaluations in 5 studies on 943 samples). Data for individual antigen tests were limited with no more than two studies for any test. Rapid molecular assays Sensitivity showed less variation compared to antigen tests (from 68% to 100%), average sensitivity was 95.2% (95% CI 86.7% to 98.3%) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.5%) based on 13 evaluations in 11 studies of on 2255 samples. Predicted values based on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people with suspected COVID-19 infection (with a prevalence of 10%) result in 105 positive test results including 10 false positives (positive predictive value 90%), and 895 negative results including 5 false negatives (negative predictive value 99%). Individual tests We calculated pooled results of individual tests for ID NOW (Abbott Laboratories) (5 evaluations) and Xpert Xpress (Cepheid Inc) (6 evaluations). Summary sensitivity for the Xpert Xpress assay (99.4%, 95% CI 98.0% to 99.8%) was 22.6 (95% CI 18.8 to 26.3) percentage points higher than that of ID NOW (76.8%, (95% CI 72.9% to 80.3%), whilst the specificity of Xpert Xpress (96.8%, 95% CI 90.6% to 99.0%) was marginally lower than ID NOW (99.6%, 95% CI 98.4% to 99.9%; a difference of -2.8% (95% CI -6.4 to 0.8)) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies early-stage evaluations of point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, largely based on remnant laboratory samples. The findings currently have limited applicability, as we are uncertain whether tests will perform in the same way in clinical practice, and according to symptoms of COVID-19, duration of symptoms, or in asymptomatic people. Rapid tests have the potential to be used to inform triage of RT-PCR use, allowing earlier detection of those testing positive, but the evidence currently is not strong enough to determine how useful they are in clinical practice. Prospective and comparative evaluations of rapid tests for COVID-19 infection in clinically relevant settings are urgently needed. Studies should recruit consecutive series of eligible participants, including both those presenting for testing due to symptoms and asymptomatic people who may have come into contact with confirmed cases. Studies should clearly describe symptomatic status and document time from symptom onset or time since exposure. Point-of-care tests must be conducted on samples according to manufacturer instructions for use and be conducted at the point of care. Any future research study report should conform to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guideline., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background & Aims: The enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) test has been proposed for the non-invasive assessment of advanced fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). We performed a systematic review to estimate the accuracy of this test against biopsy., Methods: In this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library for studies that included patients with NAFLD and that used both liver biopsy (as the reference standard) and the ELF test. Two authors independently screened the references, extracted the data and assessed the quality of included studies. Due to the variation in reported thresholds, we used a multiple thresholds random effects model for meta-analysis (diagmeta R-package)., Results: The meta-analysis of 11 studies reporting advanced fibrosis and 5 studies reporting significant fibrosis showed that the ELF test had a sensitivity of >0.90 for excluding fibrosis at a threshold of 7.7. However, as a diagnostic test at high thresholds, the test only achieved specificity and positive predictive value >0.80 in very high prevalence settings (>50%). To achieve a specificity of 0.90 for advanced and significant fibrosis, thresholds of 10.18 (sensitivity: 0.57) and 9.86 (sensitivity: 0.55) were required, respectively., Conclusion: The ELF test showed high sensitivity but limited specificity to exclude advanced and significant fibrosis at low cut-offs. The diagnostic performance of the test at higher thresholds was found to be more limited in low-prevalence settings. We conclude that clinicians should carefully consider the likely disease prevalence in their practice setting and adopt suitable test thresholds to achieve the desired performance., Lay Summary: The enhanced liver fibrosis test has been suggested as a non-invasive blood test to aid the diagnosis of severe liver fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Our study results showed that the test has a high negative predictive value, especially in populations with low disease prevalence (likely encountered in primary care); so, it can exclude advanced fibrosis in patients with NAFLD. However, when prevalence is low, the positive predictive value of the enhanced liver fibrosis test is low, suggesting that additional strategies may be needed to make a positive diagnosis in such settings., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest QMA is coordinator of the IMI2 LITMUS consortium. He reports research grant funding from Abbvie, Allergan/Tobira, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Glympse Bio, Novartis Pharma AG, Pfizer Ltd., Vertex; consultancy on behalf of Newcastle University for Abbott Laboratories, Acuitas Medical, Allergan/Tobira, Blade, BNN Cardio, Cirius, CymaBay, EcoR1, E3Bio, Eli Lilly & Company Ltd., Galmed, Genfit SA, Gilead, Grunthal, HistoIndex, Indalo, Imperial Innovations, Intercept Pharma Europe Ltd., Inventiva, IQVIA, Janssen, Kenes, Madrigal, MedImmune, Metacrine, NewGene, NGMBio, North Sea Therapeutics, Novartis, Novo Nordisk A/S, Pfizer Ltd., Poxel, ProSciento, Raptor Pharma, Servier, Viking Therapeutics; and speaker fees from Abbott Laboratories, Allergan/Tobira, BMS, Clinical Care Options, Falk, Fishawack, Genfit SA, Gilead, Integritas Communications, MedScape. MJB is a share-holder and employee of Pfizer. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details., (Copyright © 2020 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst in others the infection can cause mild to moderate COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 pneumonia, leading some patients to require intensive care support and, in some cases, to death, especially in older adults. Symptoms such as fever or cough, and signs such as oxygen saturation or lung auscultation findings, are the first and most readily available diagnostic information. Such information could be used to either rule out COVID-19 disease, or select patients for further diagnostic testing., Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19 disease or COVID-19 pneumonia., Search Methods: On 27 April 2020, we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the University of Bern living search database, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions., Selection Criteria: Studies were eligible if they included patients with suspected COVID-19 disease, or if they recruited known cases with COVID-19 disease and controls without COVID-19. Studies were eligible when they recruited patients presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies including patients who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), clinical expertise, imaging, serology tests and World Health Organization (WHO) or other definitions of COVID-19., Data Collection and Analysis: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract stage and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist. Analyses were descriptive, presenting sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in ROC (receiver operating characteristic) space and in dumbbell plots. We did not attempt meta-analysis due to the small number of studies, heterogeneity across studies and the high risk of bias., Main Results: We identified 16 studies including 7706 participants in total. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 5% to 38% with a median of 17%. There were no studies from primary care settings, although we did find seven studies in outpatient clinics (2172 participants), and four studies in the emergency department (1401 participants). We found data on 27 signs and symptoms, which fall into four different categories: systemic, respiratory, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular. No studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms and results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity; only six symptoms had a sensitivity of at least 50% in at least one study: cough, sore throat, fever, myalgia or arthralgia, fatigue, and headache. Of these, fever, myalgia or arthralgia, fatigue, and headache could be considered red flags (defined as having a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5) for COVID-19 as their specificity was above 90%, meaning that they substantially increase the likelihood of COVID-19 disease when present. Seven studies carried a high risk of bias for selection of participants because inclusion in the studies depended on the applicable testing and referral protocols, which included many of the signs and symptoms under study in this review. Five studies only included participants with pneumonia on imaging, suggesting that this is a highly selected population. In an additional four studies, we were unable to assess the risk for selection bias. These factors make it very difficult to determine the diagnostic properties of these signs and symptoms from the included studies. We also had concerns about the applicability of these results, since most studies included participants who were already admitted to hospital or presenting to hospital settings. This makes these findings less applicable to people presenting to primary care, who may have less severe illness and a lower prevalence of COVID-19 disease. None of the studies included any data on children, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We hope that future updates of this review will be able to provide more information about the diagnostic properties of signs and symptoms in different settings and age groups., Authors' Conclusions: The individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic properties, although this should be interpreted in the context of selection bias and heterogeneity between studies. Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out disease. Prospective studies in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings, examining combinations of signs and symptoms to evaluate the syndromic presentation of COVID-19 disease, are urgently needed. Results from such studies could inform subsequent management decisions such as self-isolation or selecting patients for further diagnostic testing. We also need data on potentially more specific symptoms such as loss of sense of smell. Studies in older adults are especially important., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection., Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys., Search Methods: We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020., Selection Criteria: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria)., Data Collection and Analysis: We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Main Results: We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands., Authors' Conclusions: The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Introduction: Many diagnostic accuracy studies are never reported in full in a peer-reviewed journal. Searching for unpublished studies may avoid bias due to selective publication, enrich the power of systematic reviews, and thereby help to reduce research waste. We assessed searching practices among recent systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy., Methods: We extracted data from 100 non-Cochrane systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy indexed in MEDLINE and published between October 2017 and January 2018 and from all 100 Cochrane systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy published by December 2018, irrespective of whether meta-analysis had been performed., Results: Non-Cochrane and Cochrane reviews searched a median of 4 (IQR 3-5) and 6 (IQR 5-9) databases, respectively; most often MEDLINE/PubMed (n = 100 and n = 100) and EMBASE (n = 81 and n = 100). Additional efforts to identify studies beyond searching bibliographic databases were performed in 76 and 98 reviews, most often through screening reference lists (n = 71 and n = 96), review/guideline articles (n = 18 and n = 52), or citing articles (n = 3 and n = 42). Specific sources of unpublished studies were searched in 22 and 68 reviews, for example, conference proceedings (n = 4 and n = 18), databases only containing conference abstracts (n = 2 and n = 33), or trial registries (n = 12 and n = 39). At least one unpublished study was included in 17 and 23 reviews. Overall, 39 of 2082 studies (1.9%) included in non-Cochrane reviews were unpublished, and 64 of 2780 studies (2.3%) in Cochrane reviews, most often conference abstracts (97/103)., Conclusion: Searching practices vary considerably across systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy. Unpublished studies are a minimal fraction of the evidence included in recent reviews., (© 2020 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Introduction: Obtaining a tissue diagnosis of centrally located lung tumors in patients presenting without endobronchial abnormalities is challenging, and therefore a considerable diagnostic problem., Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of linear endobronchial ultrasound guided-transbronchial-needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) for the diagnosis of centrally located lung tumors., Methods: We performed a systematic review (PROSPERO, CRD42017080968) and searched MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS Previews, and Web of Science till November 18, 2018 for studies that evaluated the yield and/or sensitivity of EBUS-TBNA for diagnosing centrally located lung tumors. We assessed the study quality using QUADAS-2 and performed random-effects meta-analysis., Results: A total of 5,657 manuscripts were identified; of these 14 were considered for the study, including 1,175 patients who underwent EBUS-TBNA for diagnosing an intrapulmonary tumor. All studies had a high risk of bias or applicability concerns, predominately regarding patient selection. The average yield of EBUS-TBNA for diagnosing centrally located lung tumors was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.92) and average sensitivity for diagnosing malignant tumors was 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.94). Among studies reporting this information, EBUS-related complications occurred in 5.4% of patients (42/721)., Conclusion: EBUS-TBNA has a high yield and sensitivity for diagnosing centrally located lung tumors and is safe in selected patients. Prospective studies are recommended to evaluate the routine use of this procedure for diagnosing intrapulmonary tumors., (© 2019 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)