Search

Background: Invasive aspergillosis is the most common life-threatening opportunistic invasive mycosis in immunocompromised patients. A test for invasive aspergillosis should neither be too invasive nor too great a burden for the already weakened patient. The serum galactomannan enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) seems to have the potential to meet both requirements., Objectives: To obtain summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of galactomannan detection in serum for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis., Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science with both MeSH terms and text words for both aspergillosis and the sandwich ELISA. We checked the reference lists of included studies and review articles for additional studies. We conducted the searches in February 2014., Selection Criteria: We included cross-sectional studies, case-control designs and consecutive series of patients assessing the diagnostic accuracy of galactomannan detection for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis in patients with neutropenia or patients whose neutrophils are functionally compromised. The reference standard was composed of the criteria given by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and the Mycoses Study Group (MSG)., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We carried out meta-analysis using the bivariate method. We investigated sources of heterogeneity by adding potential sources of heterogeneity to the model as covariates., Main Results: We included 54 studies in the review (50 in the meta-analyses), containing 5660 patients, of whom 586 had proven or probable invasive aspergillosis. When using an optical density index (ODI) of 0.5 as a cut-off value, the sensitivity of the test was 82% (73% to 90%) and the specificity was 81% (72% to 90%). At a cut-off value of 1.0 ODI, the sensitivity was 72% (65% to 80%) and the specificity was 88% (84% to 92%). At a cut-off value of 1.5 ODI, the sensitivity was 61% (47% to 75%) and the specificity was 93% (89% to 97%). None of the potential sources of heterogeneity had a statistically significant effect on either sensitivity or specificity., Authors' Conclusions: If we used the test at a cut-off value of 0.5 ODI in a population of 100 patients with a disease prevalence of 9% (overall median prevalence), two patients who have invasive aspergillosis would be missed (sensitivity 82%, 18% false negatives), and 17 patients would be treated unnecessarily or referred unnecessarily for further testing (specificity 81%, 19% false negatives). If we used the test at a cut-off value of 1.5 in the same population, that would mean that four invasive aspergillosis patients would be missed (sensitivity 61%, 39% false negatives), and six patients would be treated or referred for further testing unnecessarily (specificity 93%, 7% false negatives). These numbers should, however, be interpreted with caution because the results were very heterogeneous.

Background & Aims: Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a chronic cholestatic liver disease. At present, there is no appropriate histologic scoring system available for PSC, evaluating both degree of necroinflammatory activity (grade) and fibrosis (stage). The aim of this study was to assess if three scoring systems, commonly used in different liver diseases could be applied for grading and/or staging of PSC., Methods: Sixty-four PSC patients from a Dutch cohort, who underwent diagnostic liver biopsy, were included. Staging was scored using Ishak, Nakanuma, and Ludwig systems. Grading was scored using Ishak and Nakanuma systems. Three measures of outcome were defined; transplant-free survival, time to liver transplantation (LTx) and occurrence of cirrhosis related symptoms (CRS). Association of grade and stage with outcome was estimated using Kaplan-Meier log-rank test, and Cox regression analysis. Correlation with biochemistry was assessed by Spearman's rank test., Results: There were strong associations between disease stage measured by Ishak, Nakanuma, and Ludwig staging systems with both outcome measuring transplant-free survival (Hazard ratio (HR) 2.56; 95% CI 1.11-5.89, HR 6.53; 95% CI 2.01-21.22, HR 1.94; 95% CI 1.00-3.79, respectively), and time to LTx (HR 4.18; 95%CI 1.51-11.56, HR 7.05; 95% CI 1.77-28.11, HR 3.13; 95%CI 1.42-6.87, respectively). Ishak and Nakanuma grading systems were not associated with CRS. Weak correlations between histopathology and liver biochemistry were shown., Conclusion: Applying the Nakanuma, Ishak, and Ludwig histopathological staging systems is feasible and clinically relevant given their association with transplant-free survival and time to LTx. This suggests that these staging systems could be likely candidates for surrogate endpoints and stratification purposes in clinical trials in PSC., (Copyright © 2015 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most prevalent type of skin cancer. Histologic analysis of punch biopsy or direct excision specimen is used to confirm clinical diagnosis. In vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is a non-invasive imaging modality that could facilitate early diagnosis and minimize unnecessary invasive procedures. We systematically reviewed diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of RCM in diagnosing primary BCCs to judge its usefulness. Eligible studies were reviewed for methodological quality using the QUADAS-2 tool. We used the bivariate random-effects model to calculate summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Six studies met the selection criteria and were included for analysis. The meta-analysis showed a summary estimate of sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI, 0.90-0.99) and specificity 0.93 (95% CI, 0.88-0.96). All but one of the QUADAS-2 items showed a high or unclear risk of bias with regards to patient selection. RCM may be a promising diagnostic tool, but the limited number of available studies and potential risk of bias of included studies do not allow us to draw firm conclusions. Future accuracy studies should take these limitations into account., (© 2015 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Objective: How long clinicians should wait before considering an antipsychotic ineffective and changing treatment in schizophrenia is an unresolved clinical question. Guidelines differ substantially in this regard. The authors conducted a diagnostic test meta-analysis using mostly individual patient data to assess whether lack of improvement at week 2 predicts later nonresponse., Method: The search included EMBASE, MEDLINE, BIOSIS, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and reference lists of relevant articles, supplemented by requests to authors of all relevant studies. The main outcome was prediction of nonresponse, defined as <50% reduction in total score on either the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (corresponding to at least much improved) from baseline to endpoint (4-12 weeks), by <20% PANSS or BPRS improvement (corresponding to less than minimally improved) at week 2. Secondary outcomes were absent cross-sectional symptomatic remission and <20% PANSS or BPRS reduction at endpoint. Potential moderator variables were examined by meta-regression., Results: In 34 studies (N=9,460) a <20% PANSS or BPRS reduction at week 2 predicted nonresponse at endpoint with a specificity of 86% and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 90%. Using data for observed cases (specificity=86%, PPV=85%) or lack of remission (specificity=77%, PPV=88%) yielded similar results. Conversely, using the definition of <20% reduction at endpoint yielded worse results (specificity=70%, PPV=55%). The test specificity was significantly moderated by a trial duration of <6 weeks, higher baseline illness severity, and shorter illness duration., Conclusions: Patients not even minimally improved by week 2 of antipsychotic treatment are unlikely to respond later and may benefit from a treatment change.

Background: Small-study effects and time trends have been identified in meta-analyses of randomized trials. We evaluated whether these effects are also present in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies., Methods: A systematic search identified test accuracy meta-analyses published between May and September 2012. In each meta-analysis, the strength of the associations between estimated accuracy of the test (diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), sensitivity, and specificity) and sample size and between accuracy estimates and time since first publication were evaluated using meta-regression models. The regression coefficients over all meta-analyses were summarized using random effects meta-analysis., Results: Forty-six meta-analyses and their corresponding primary studies (N = 859) were included. There was a non-significant relative change in the DOR of 1.01 per 100 additional participants (95% CI 1.00 to 1.03; P = 0.07). In the subgroup of imaging studies, there was a relative increase in sensitivity of 1.13 per 100 additional diseased subjects (95% CI 1.05 to 1.22; P = 0.002). The relative change in DOR with time since first publication was 0.94 per 5 years (95% CI 0.80 to 1.10; P = 0.42). Sensitivity was lower in studies published later (relative change 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; P = 0.04)., Conclusions: Small-study effects and time trends do not seem to be as pronounced in meta-analyses of test accuracy studies as they are in meta-analyses of randomized trials. Small-study effects seem to be reversed in imaging, where larger studies tend to report higher sensitivity.

Background: Point-of-care (POC) tests for diagnosing schistosomiasis include tests based on circulating antigen detection and urine reagent strip tests. If they had sufficient diagnostic accuracy they could replace conventional microscopy as they provide a quicker answer and are easier to use., Objectives: To summarise the diagnostic accuracy of: a) urine reagent strip tests in detecting active Schistosoma haematobium infection, with microscopy as the reference standard; and b) circulating antigen tests for detecting active Schistosoma infection in geographical regions endemic for Schistosoma mansoni or S. haematobium or both, with microscopy as the reference standard., Search Methods: We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, MEDION, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) without language restriction up to 30 June 2014., Selection Criteria: We included studies that used microscopy as the reference standard: for S. haematobium, microscopy of urine prepared by filtration, centrifugation, or sedimentation methods; and for S. mansoni, microscopy of stool by Kato-Katz thick smear. We included studies on participants residing in endemic areas only., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed quality of the data using QUADAS-2, and performed meta-analysis where appropriate. Using the variability of test thresholds, we used the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model for all eligible tests (except the circulating cathodic antigen (CCA) POC for S. mansoni, where the bivariate random-effects model was more appropriate). We investigated heterogeneity, and carried out indirect comparisons where data were sufficient. Results for sensitivity and specificity are presented as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Main Results: We included 90 studies; 88 from field settings in Africa. The median S. haematobium infection prevalence was 41% (range 1% to 89%) and 36% for S. mansoni (range 8% to 95%). Study design and conduct were poorly reported against current standards. Tests for S. haematobium Urine reagent test strips versus microscopyCompared to microscopy, the detection of microhaematuria on test strips had the highest sensitivity and specificity (sensitivity 75%, 95% CI 71% to 79%; specificity 87%, 95% CI 84% to 90%; 74 studies, 102,447 participants). For proteinuria, sensitivity was 61% and specificity was 82% (82,113 participants); and for leukocyturia, sensitivity was 58% and specificity 61% (1532 participants). However, the difference in overall test accuracy between the urine reagent strips for microhaematuria and proteinuria was not found to be different when we compared separate populations (P = 0.25), or when direct comparisons within the same individuals were performed (paired studies; P = 0.21).When tests were evaluated against the higher quality reference standard (when multiple samples were analysed), sensitivity was marginally lower for microhaematuria (71% vs 75%) and for proteinuria (49% vs 61%). The specificity of these tests was comparable. Antigen assayCompared to microscopy, the CCA test showed considerable heterogeneity; meta-analytic sensitivity estimate was 39%, 95% CI 6% to 73%; specificity 78%, 95% CI 55% to 100% (four studies, 901 participants). Tests for S. mansoni Compared to microscopy, the CCA test meta-analytic estimates for detecting S. mansoni at a single threshold of trace positive were: sensitivity 89% (95% CI 86% to 92%); and specificity 55% (95% CI 46% to 65%; 15 studies, 6091 participants) Against a higher quality reference standard, the sensitivity results were comparable (89% vs 88%) but specificity was higher (66% vs 55%). For the CAA test, sensitivity ranged from 47% to 94%, and specificity from 8% to 100% (4 studies, 1583 participants)., Authors' Conclusions: Among the evaluated tests for S. haematobium infection, microhaematuria correctly detected the largest proportions of infections and non-infections identified by microscopy.The CCA POC test for S. mansoni detects a very large proportion of infections identified by microscopy, but it misclassifies a large proportion of microscopy negatives as positives in endemic areas with a moderate to high prevalence of infection, possibly because the test is potentially more sensitive than microscopy.

Purpose: To evaluate how diagnostic accuracy study reports published in 2012 adhered to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement and whether there were any differences in reporting compared with 2000 and 2004., Materials and Methods: PubMed was searched for studies published in 12 high-impact-factor journals in 2012 that evaluated the accuracy of one or more diagnostic tests against a clinical reference standard. Two independent reviewers scored reporting completeness of each article with the 25-item STARD checklist. Mixed-effects modeling was used to analyze differences in reporting with previous evaluations from articles published in 2000 and 2004., Results: Included were 112 articles. The overall mean number of STARD items reported in 2012 was 15.3 ± 3.9 (standard deviation; range, 6.0-23.5). There was an improvement of 3.4 items (95% confidence interval: 2.6, 4.3) compared with studies published in 2000, and an improvement of 1.7 items (95% confidence interval: 0.9, 2.5) compared with studies published in 2004. Significantly more items were reported for single-gate studies compared with multiple-gate studies (16.8 vs 12.1, respectively; P < .001) and for studies that evaluated imaging tests compared with laboratory tests and other types of tests (17.0 vs 14.0 vs 14.5, respectively; P < .001)., Conclusion: Completeness of reporting improved in the 10 years after the launch of STARD, but it remains suboptimal for many articles. Reporting of inclusion criteria and sampling methods for recruiting patients, information about blinding, and confidence intervals for accuracy estimates are in need of further improvement.

Background: In children with urinary tract infection (UTI), only those with pyelonephritis (and not cystitis) are at risk for developing long-term renal sequelae. If non-invasive biomarkers could accurately differentiate children with cystitis from children with pyelonephritis, treatment and follow-up could potentially be individualized., Objectives: The objectives of this review were to 1) determine whether procalcitonin, C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) can replace the acute DMSA scan in the diagnostic evaluation of children with UTI; 2) assess the influence of patient and study characteristics on the diagnostic accuracy of these tests, and 3) compare the performance of the three tests to each other., Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, DARE, Web of Science, and BIOSIS Previews for this review. The reference lists of all included articles and relevant systematic reviews were searched to identify additional studies not found through the electronic search., Selection Criteria: We only considered published studies that evaluated the results of an index test (procalcitonin, CRP, ESR) against the results of an acute-phase DMSA scan (conducted within 30 days of the UTI) in children aged 0 to 18 years with a culture-confirmed episode of UTI. The following cutoff values were used for the primary analysis: 0.5 ng/mL for procalcitonin, 20 mg/L for CRP and 30 mm/h for ESR., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently applied the selection criteria to all citations and independently abstracted data. We used the bivariate model to calculate pooled random-effects pooled sensitivity and specificity values., Main Results: A total of 24 studies met our inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies provided data for the primary analysis: six studies (434 children) included data on procalcitonin, 13 studies (1638 children) included data on CRP, and six studies (1737 children) included data on ESR (some studies had data on more than one test). The summary sensitivity estimates (95% CI) for the procalcitonin, CRP, ESR tests at the aforementioned cutoffs were 0.86 (0.72 to 0.93), 0.94 (0.85 to 0.97), and 0.87 (0.77 to 0.93), respectively. The summary specificity values for procalcitonin, CRP, and ESR tests at these cutoffs were 0.74 (0.55 to 0.87), 0.39 (0.23 to 0.58), and 0.48 (0.33 to 0.64), respectively., Authors' Conclusions: The ESR test does not appear to be sufficiently accurate to be helpful in differentiating children with cystitis from children with pyelonephritis. A low CRP value (< 20 mg/L) appears to be somewhat useful in ruling out pyelonephritis (decreasing the probability of pyelonephritis to < 20%), but unexplained heterogeneity in the data prevents us from making recommendations at this time. The procalcitonin test seems better suited for ruling in pyelonephritis, but the limited number of studies and the marked heterogeneity between studies prevents us from reaching definitive conclusions. Thus, at present, we do not find any compelling evidence to recommend the routine use of any of these tests in clinical practice.

Objectives: To examine how authors explore and report on sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies., Study Design and Setting: A cohort of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests was systematically identified. Data were extracted on whether an exploration of the sources of heterogeneity was undertaken, how this was done, the number and type of potential sources explored, and how results and conclusions were reported., Results: Of the 65 systematic reviews, 12 did not perform a meta-analysis and eight of these gave heterogeneity between studies as a reason. Of the 53 reviews containing a meta-analysis, 40 explored potential sources of heterogeneity in a formal manner and 27 identified at least one source of heterogeneity. The reviews not investigating heterogeneity were smaller than those that did (median [interquartile range {IQR}], 8 [5-15] vs. 14 [11-19] primary studies). Twelve reviews performed a sensitivity analysis, 25 stratified analyses, and 19 metaregression. Many sources of heterogeneity were explored compared with the number of primary studies in a meta-analysis (median ratio, 1:5). Review authors placed importance on the exploration of sources of heterogeneity; 37 mentioned the exploration or the findings thereof in the abstract or conclusion of the main text.results, Conclusion: Methods for investigating sources of heterogeneity varied widely between reviews. Based on our findings of the review, we made suggestions on what to consider and report on when exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Molecular methods have been proposed as highly sensitive tools for the detection of Leishmania parasites in visceral leishmaniasis (VL) patients. Here, we evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of these tools in a meta-analysis of the published literature. The selection criteria were original studies that evaluate the sensitivities and specificities of molecular tests for diagnosis of VL, adequate classification of study participants, and the absolute numbers of true positives and negatives derivable from the data presented. Forty studies met the selection criteria, including PCR, real-time PCR, nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA), and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP). The sensitivities of the individual studies ranged from 29 to 100%, and the specificities ranged from 25 to 100%. The pooled sensitivity of PCR in whole blood was 93.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.0 to 95.2), and the specificity was 95.6% (95% CI, 87.0 to 98.6). The specificity was significantly lower in consecutive studies, at 63.3% (95% CI, 53.9 to 71.8), due either to true-positive patients not being identified by parasitological methods or to the number of asymptomatic carriers in areas of endemicity. PCR for patients with HIV-VL coinfection showed high diagnostic accuracy in buffy coat and bone marrow, ranging from 93.1 to 96.9%. Molecular tools are highly sensitive assays for Leishmania detection and may contribute as an additional test in the algorithm, together with a clear clinical case definition. We observed wide variety in reference standards and study designs and now recommend consecutively designed studies., (Copyright © 2014, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.)

Objective: Currently, there is no consensus on the definition of hyperemesis gravidarum (HG; protracted vomiting in pregnancy) and no single widely used set of diagnostic criteria for HG. The various definitions rely on symptoms, sometimes in combination with laboratory tests. Through a systematic review, we aimed to summarize available evidence on the diagnostic value of biomarkers for HG. This could assist diagnosis and may shed light on the, as yet, not understood cause of the disorder., Study Design: We searched Medline and Embase for articles about diagnostic biomarkers for either the presence or severity of HG or nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. We defined HG as any combination of nausea, vomiting, dehydration, weight loss, or hospitalization for nausea and/or vomiting in pregnancy, in the absence of any other obvious cause for these complaints., Results: We found 81 articles on 9 biomarkers. Although 65% of all studies included only HG cases with ketonuria, we did not find an association between ketonuria and presence or severity of HG in 5 studies reporting on this association. Metaanalysis, with the use of the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics model, yielded an odds ratio of 3.2 (95% confidence interval, 2.0-5.1) of Heliobacter pylori for HG, as compared with asymptomatic control subjects (sensitivity, 73%; specificity, 55%). Studies on human chorionic gonadotropin and thyroid hormones, leptin, estradiol, progesterone, and white blood count showed inconsistent associations with HG; lymphocytes tended to be higher in women with HG., Conclusion: We did not find support for the use of ketonuria in the diagnosis of HG. H pylori serology might be useful in specific patients., (Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group developed an approach to assess the quality of evidence of diagnostic tests. Its use in Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews is new. We applied this approach to three Cochrane reviews with the aim of better understanding the application of the GRADE criteria to such reviews., Study Design and Setting: We selected reviews to achieve clinical and methodological diversities. At least three assessors independently assessed each review according to the GRADE criteria of risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision, inconsistency, and publication bias. Two teleconferences were held to share experiences., Results: For the interpretation of the GRADE criteria, it made a difference whether assessors looked at the evidence from a patient-important outcome perspective or from a test accuracy standpoint. GRADE criteria such as inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias were challenging to apply as was the assessment of comparative test accuracy reviews., Conclusion: The perspective from which evidence is graded can influence judgments about quality. Guidance on application of GRADE to comparative test reviews and on the GRADE criteria of inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias will facilitate the operationalization of GRADE for diagnostics., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The validity of a meta-analysis can be understood better in light of the possible impact of publication bias. The majority of the methods to investigate publication bias in terms of small study-effects are developed for meta-analyses of intervention studies, leaving authors of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews with limited guidance. The aim of this study was to evaluate if and how publication bias was assessed in meta-analyses of DTA, and to compare the results of various statistical methods used to assess publication bias., Methods: A systematic search was initiated to identify DTA reviews with a meta-analysis published between September 2011 and January 2012. We extracted all information about publication bias from the reviews and the two-by-two tables. Existing statistical methods for the detection of publication bias were applied on data from the included studies., Results: Out of 1,335 references, 114 reviews could be included. Publication bias was explicitly mentioned in 75 reviews (65.8%) and 47 of these had performed statistical methods to investigate publication bias in terms of small study-effects: 6 by drawing funnel plots, 16 by statistical testing and 25 by applying both methods. The applied tests were Egger's test (n = 18), Deeks' test (n = 12), Begg's test (n = 5), both the Egger and Begg tests (n = 4), and other tests (n = 2). Our own comparison of the results of Begg's, Egger's and Deeks' test for 92 meta-analyses indicated that up to 34% of the results did not correspond with one another., Conclusions: The majority of DTA review authors mention or investigate publication bias. They mainly use suboptimal methods like the Begg and Egger tests that are not developed for DTA meta-analyses. Our comparison of the Begg, Egger and Deeks tests indicated that these tests do give different results and thus are not interchangeable. Deeks' test is recommended for DTA meta-analyses and should be preferred.

Background: Drawing conclusions from systematic reviews of test accuracy studies without considering the methodological quality (risk of bias) of included studies may lead to unwarranted optimism about the value of the test(s) under study. We sought to identify to what extent the results of quality assessment of included studies are incorporated in the conclusions of diagnostic accuracy reviews., Methods: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for test accuracy reviews published between May and September 2012. We examined the abstracts and main texts of these reviews to see whether and how the results of quality assessment were linked to the accuracy estimates when drawing conclusions., Results: We included 65 reviews of which 53 contained a meta-analysis. Sixty articles (92%) had formally assessed the methodological quality of included studies, most often using the original QUADAS tool (n = 44, 68%). Quality assessment was mentioned in 28 abstracts (43%); with a majority (n = 21) mentioning it in the methods section. In only 5 abstracts (8%) were results of quality assessment incorporated in the conclusions. Thirteen reviews (20%) presented results of quality assessment in the main text only, without further discussion. Forty-seven reviews (72%) discussed results of quality assessment; the most frequent form was as limitations in assessing quality (n = 28). Only 6 reviews (9%) further linked the results of quality assessment to their conclusions, 3 of which did not conduct a meta-analysis due to limitations in the quality of included studies. In the reviews with a meta-analysis, 19 (36%) incorporated quality in the analysis. Eight reported significant effects of quality on the pooled estimates; in none of them these effects were factored in the conclusions., Conclusion: While almost all recent diagnostic accuracy reviews evaluate the quality of included studies, very few consider results of quality assessment when drawing conclusions. The practice of reporting systematic reviews of test accuracy should improve if readers not only want to be informed about the limitations in the available evidence, but also on the associated implications for the performance of the evaluated tests.

Background: The presence of residual tumour after primary debulking surgery is the most important prognostic factor in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. In up to 60% of cases, residual tumour of more than 1 cm is left behind, stressing the necessity of accurately selecting those patients who should be treated with primary debulking surgery and those who should receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy instead., Objectives: To determine if performing an open laparoscopy after the diagnostic work-up of patients suspected of advanced ovarian cancer is accurate in predicting the resectability of disease., Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, MEDION and ISI Web of Science to February 2013. Furthermore, we checked references of identified primary studies and review articles., Selection Criteria: We included studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy to determine the resectability of disease in patients who are suspected of advanced ovarian cancer and planned to receive primary debulking surgery., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors assessed the quality of included studies using QUADAS-2 and extracted data on study and patients' characteristics, index test, target condition and reference standard. Data for two-by-two tables were extracted and summarised graphically. Sensitivity and specificity and negative predictive values were calculated., Main Results: We included seven studies reporting on six cohorts. Between 27% to 64% of included patients per study were positive on laparoscopy (too extensive disease to warrant laparotomy) and between 36% to 73% were negative (disease suitable for debulking laparotomy). Only two studies avoided partial verification bias and provided data to calculate sensitivity and specificity, which did not justify meta-analysis. These two studies had a sensitivity of 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.82) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.90); however, the specificity of both studies was 1.00 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.00). In these two studies there were no false positives, i.e. no patients for whom laparoscopy indicated that major surgery would not be successful and should be avoided, whereas, in reality the patient could be successfully operated upon. Negative predictive values (NPV), for those patients who were diagnosed with having not too extensive disease correctly identified were 0.75 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.86) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.99) due to a different prevalence. Although the studies did report sufficient data to calculate NPVs, we judged these estimates too heterogeneous to meta-analyse.Three studies described the development or validation of a prediction model with a clear cut-off for test positivity. Sensitivity and specificity of these prediction models were 0.30 to 0.70 and 0.89 to 1.00, respectively. However, one of these studies suffered from partial verification bias., Authors' Conclusions: Laparoscopy is a promising test, but the low number of studies and the differences between the included studies do not allow firm conclusions to be drawn from these data. Due to a difference in prevalence, there is a wide range in negative predictive values between studies. Two studies verified all patients. These imply a high specificity of laparoscopy in diagnosing resectability and have a good sensitivity. Both studies show that the use of criteria for unresectable disease will result in no patients inappropriately unexplored. However, there will still be patients undergoing unsuccessful primary laparotomy. Using a prediction model does not increase the sensitivity and will result in more unnecessarily explored patients, due to a lower specificity.

Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy summarize the accuracy, e.g. the sensitivity and specificity, of diagnostic tests in a systematic and transparent way. The aim of such a review is to investigate whether a test is sufficiently specific or sensitive to fit its role in practice, to compare the accuracy of two or more diagnostic tests, or to investigate where existing variation in results comes from. The search strategy should be broad and preferably fully reported, to enable readers to assess the completeness of it. Included studies usually have a cross-sectional design in which the tests of interest, ideally both the index test and its comparator, are evaluated against the reference standard. They should be a reflection of the situation that the review question refers to. The quality of included studies is assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 checklist, containing items such as a consecutive and all-inclusive patient selection process, blinding of index test and reference standard assessment, a valid reference standard, and complete verification of all included participants. Studies recruiting cases separately from (healthy) controls are regarded as bearing a high risk of bias. For meta-analysis, the bivariate model or the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model is used. These models take into account potential threshold effects and the correlation between sensitivity and specificity. They also allow addition of covariates for investigatation of potential sources of heterogeneity. Finally, the results from the meta-analyses should be explained and interpreted for the reader, to be well understood., (© 2013 The Author Clinical Microbiology and Infection © 2013 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.)

Background: Novel endoscopic technologies could allow optical diagnosis and resection of colonic polyps without histopathological testing. Our aim was to establish the sensitivity, specificity, and real-time negative predictive value of three types of narrowed spectrum endoscopy (narrow-band imaging [NBI], image-enhanced endoscopy [i-scan], and Fujinon intelligent chromoendoscopy [FICE]), confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE), and autofluorescence imaging for differentiation between neoplastic and non-neoplastic colonic lesions., Methods: We identified relevant studies through a search of Medline, Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. Clinical trials and observational studies were eligible for inclusion when the diagnostic performance of NBI, i-scan, FICE, autofluorescence imaging, or CLE had been assessed for differentiation, with histopathology as the reference standard, and for which a 2 × 2 contingency table of lesion diagnosis could be constructed. We did a random-effects bivariate meta-analysis using a non-linear mixed model approach to calculate summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity, and plotted estimates in a summary receiver-operating characteristic curve., Findings: We included 91 studies in our analysis: 56 were of NBI, ten of i-scan, 14 of FICE, 11 of CLE, and 11 of autofluorescence imaging (more than one of the investigated modalities assessed in eight studies). For NBI, overall sensitivity was 91·0% (95% CI 88·6-93·0), specificity 85·6% (81·3-89·0), and real-time negative predictive value 82·5% (75·4-87·9). For i-scan, overall sensitivity was 89·3% (83·3-93·3), specificity 88·2% (80·3-93·2), and real-time negative predictive value 86·5% (78·0-92·1). For FICE, overall sensitivity was 91·8% (87·1-94·9), specificity 83·5% (77·2-88·3), and real-time negative predictive value 83·7% (77·5-88·4). For autofluorescence imaging, overall sensitivity was 86·7% (79·5-91·6), specificity 65·9% (50·9-78·2), and real-time negative predictive value 81·5% (54·0-94·3). For CLE, overall sensitivity was 93·3% (88·4-96·2), specificity 89·9% (81·8-94·6), and real-time negative predictive value 94·8% (86·6-98·1)., Interpretation: All endoscopic imaging techniques other than autofluorescence imaging could be used by appropriately trained endoscopists to make a reliable optical diagnosis for colonic lesions in daily practice. Further research should be focused on whether training could help to improve negative predictive values., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To collect reasons for selecting the methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy from authors of systematic reviews and improve guidance on recommended methods., Study Design and Setting: Online survey in authors of recently published meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy., Results: We identified 100 eligible reviews, of which 40 had used more advanced methods of meta-analysis (hierarchical random-effects approach), 52 more traditional methods (summary receiver operating characteristic curve based on linear regression or a univariate approach), and 8 combined both. Fifty-nine authors responded to the survey; 29 (49%) authors had used advanced methods, 25 (42%) authors traditional methods, and 5 (9%) authors combined traditional and advanced methods. Most authors who had used advanced methods reported to do so because they believed that these methods are currently recommended (n = 27; 93%). Most authors who had used traditional methods also reported to do so because they believed that these methods are currently recommended (n = 18; 75%) or easy to understand (n = 18; 75%)., Conclusion: Although more advanced methods for meta-analysis are recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration, both authors using these methods and those using more traditional methods responded that the methods they used were currently recommended. Clearer and more widespread dissemination of guidelines on recommended methods for meta-analysis of test accuracy data is needed., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In 1996, shortly after the founding of The Cochrane Collaboration, leading figures in test evaluation research established a Methods Group to focus on the relatively new and rapidly evolving methods for the systematic review of studies of diagnostic tests. Seven years later, the Collaboration decided it was time to develop a publication format and methodology for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) reviews, as well as the software needed to implement these reviews in The Cochrane Library. A meeting hosted by the German Cochrane Centre in 2004 brought together key methodologists in the area, many of whom became closely involved in the subsequent development of the methodological framework for DTA reviews. DTA reviews first appeared in The Cochrane Library in 2008 and are now an integral part of the work of the Collaboration.

Background: A systematic and extensive search for as many eligible studies as possible is essential in any systematic review. When searching for diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies in bibliographic databases, it is recommended that terms for disease (target condition) are combined with terms for the diagnostic test (index test). Researchers have developed methodological filters to try to increase the precision of these searches. These consist of text words and database indexing terms and would be added to the target condition and index test searches.Efficiently identifying reports of DTA studies presents challenges because the methods are often not well reported in their titles and abstracts, suitable indexing terms may not be available and relevant indexing terms do not seem to be consistently assigned. A consequence of using search filters to identify records for diagnostic reviews is that relevant studies might be missed, while the number of irrelevant studies that need to be assessed may not be reduced. The current guidance for Cochrane DTA reviews recommends against the addition of a methodological search filter to target condition and index test search, as the only search approach., Objectives: To systematically review empirical studies that report the development or evaluation, or both, of methodological search filters designed to retrieve DTA studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE., Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE (1950 to week 1 November 2012); EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 48); the Cochrane Methodology Register (Issue 3, 2012); ISI Web of Science (11 January 2013); PsycINFO (13 March 2013); Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA) (31 May 2010); and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA) (13 March 2013). We undertook citation searches on Web of Science, checked the reference lists of relevant studies, and searched the Search Filters Resource website of the InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group (ISSG)., Selection Criteria: Studies reporting the development or evaluation, or both, of a MEDLINE or EMBASE search filter aimed at retrieving DTA studies, which reported a measure of the filter's performance were eligible., Data Collection and Analysis: The main outcome was a measure of filter performance, such as sensitivity or precision. We extracted data on the identification of the reference set (including the gold standard and, if used, the non-gold standard records), how the reference set was used and any limitations, the identification and combination of the search terms in the filters, internal and external validity testing, the number of filters evaluated, the date the study was conducted, the date the searches were completed, and the databases and search interfaces used. Where 2 x 2 data were available on filter performance, we used these to calculate sensitivity, specificity, precision and Number Needed to Read (NNR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We compared the performance of a filter as reported by the original development study and any subsequent studies that evaluated the same filter., Main Results: Ninteen studies were included, reporting on 57 MEDLINE filters and 13 EMBASE filters. Thirty MEDLINE and four EMBASE filters were tested in an evaluation study where the performance of one or more filters was tested against one or more gold standards. The reported outcome measures varied. Some studies reported specificity as well as sensitivity if a reference set containing non-gold standard records in addition to gold standard records was used. In some cases, the original development study did not report any performance data on the filters. Original performance from the development study was not available for 17 filters that were subsequently tested in evaluation studies. All 19 studies reported the sensitivity of the filters that they developed or evaluated, nine studies reported the specificities and 14 studies reported the precision.No filter which had original performance data from its development study, and was subsequently tested in an evaluation study, had what we defined a priori as acceptable sensitivity (> 90%) and precision (> 10%). In studies that developed MEDLINE filters that were evaluated in another study (n = 13), the sensitivity ranged from 55% to 100% (median 86%) and specificity from 73% to 98% (median 95%). Estimates of performance were lower in eight studies that evaluated the same 13 MEDLINE filters, with sensitivities ranging from 14% to 100% (median 73%) and specificities ranging from 15% to 96% (median 81%). Precision ranged from 1.1% to 40% (median 9.5%) in studies that developed MEDLINE filters and from 0.2% to 16.7% (median 4%) in studies that evaluated these filters. A similar range of specificities and precision were reported amongst the evaluation studies for MEDLINE filters without an original performance measure. Sensitivities ranged from 31% to 100% (median 71%), specificity ranged from 13% to 90% (median 55.5%) and precision from 1.0% to 11.0% (median 3.35%).For the EMBASE filters, the original sensitivities reported in two development studies ranged from 74% to 100% (median 90%) for three filters, and precision ranged from 1.2% to 17.6% (median 3.7%). Evaluation studies of these filters had sensitivities from 72% to 97% (median 86%) and precision from 1.2% to 9% (median 3.7%). The performance of EMBASE search filters in development and evaluation studies were more alike than the performance of MEDLINE filters in development and evaluation studies. None of the EMBASE filters in either type of study had a sensitivity above 90% and precision above 10%., Authors' Conclusions: None of the current methodological filters designed to identify reports of primary DTA studies in MEDLINE or EMBASE combine sufficiently high sensitivity, required for systematic reviews, with a reasonable degree of precision. This finding supports the current recommendation in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy that the combination of methodological filter search terms with terms for the index test and target condition should not be used as the only approach when conducting formal searches to inform systematic reviews of DTA.

Background: Anecdotal evidence suggests that the sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test may vary with disease prevalence. Our objective was to investigate the associations between disease prevalence and test sensitivity and specificity using studies of diagnostic accuracy., Methods: We used data from 23 meta-analyses, each of which included 10-39 studies (416 total). The median prevalence per review ranged from 1% to 77%. We evaluated the effects of prevalence on sensitivity and specificity using a bivariate random-effects model for each meta-analysis, with prevalence as a covariate. We estimated the overall effect of prevalence by pooling the effects using the inverse variance method., Results: Within a given review, a change in prevalence from the lowest to highest value resulted in a corresponding change in sensitivity or specificity from 0 to 40 percentage points. This effect was statistically significant (p < 0.05) for either sensitivity or specificity in 8 meta-analyses (35%). Overall, specificity tended to be lower with higher disease prevalence; there was no such systematic effect for sensitivity., Interpretation: The sensitivity and specificity of a test often vary with disease prevalence; this effect is likely to be the result of mechanisms, such as patient spectrum, that affect prevalence, sensitivity and specificity. Because it may be difficult to identify such mechanisms, clinicians should use prevalence as a guide when selecting studies that most closely match their situation.

Background: Diagnosis of leptospirosis by the microscopic agglutination test (MAT) or by culture is confined to specialized laboratories. Although ELISA techniques are more common, they still require laboratory facilities. Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) can be used for easy point-of-care diagnosis. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the RDTs LeptoTek Dri Dot, LeptoTek Lateral Flow, and Leptocheck-WB, prospectively., Methodology: During 2001 to 2012, one or two of the RDTs at the same time have been applied prior to routine diagnostics (MAT, ELISA and culture) on serum specimens from participants sent in for leptospirosis diagnosis. The case definition was based on MAT, ELISA and culture results. Participants not fulfilling the case definition were considered not to have leptospirosis. The diagnostic accuracy was determined based on the 1(st) submitted sample and paired samples, either in an overall analysis or stratified according to days post onset of illness., Results: The overall sensitivity and specificity for the LeptoTek Dri Dot was 75% respectively 96%, for the LeptoTek Lateral Flow 78% respectively 95%, and for the Leptocheck-WB 78% respectively 98%. Based on the 1(st) submitted sample the sensitivity was low (51% for LeptoTek Dri Dot, 69% for LeptoTek Lateral Flow, and 55% for Leptocheck-WB), but substantially increased when the results of paired samples were combined, although accompanied by a lower specificity (82% respectively 91% for LeptoTek Dri Dot, 86% respectively 84% for LeptoTek Lateral Flow, and 80% respectively 93% for Leptocheck-WB)., Conclusions: All three tests present antibody tests contributing to the diagnosis of leptospirosis, thus supporting clinical suspicion and contributing to awareness. Since the overall sensitivity of the tested RDTs did not exceed 80%, one should be cautious to rely only on an RDT result, and confirmation by reference tests is strongly recommended.

Background: A variety of systems have been developed to grade evidence and develop recommendations based on the available evidence. However, development of guidelines for medical tests is especially challenging given the typical indirectness of the evidence; direct evidence of the effects of testing on patient important outcomes is usually absent. We compared grading systems for medical tests on how they use evidence in guideline development., Methods: We used a systematic strategy to look for grading systems specific to medical tests in PubMed, professional guideline websites, via personal correspondence, and handsearching back references of key articles. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument as a starting point, we defined two sets of characteristics to describe these systems: methodological and process ones. Methodological characteristics are features relating to how evidence is gathered, appraised, and used in recommendations. Process characteristics are those relating to the guideline development process. Data were extracted in duplicate and differences resolved through discussion., Results: Twelve grading systems could be included. All varied in the degree to which methodological and process characteristics were addressed. Having a clinical scenario, identifying the care pathway and/or developing an analytical framework, having explicit criteria for appraising and linking indirect evidence, and having explicit methodologies for translating evidence into recommendations were least frequently addressed. Five systems at most addressed these, to varying degrees of explicitness and completeness. Process wise, features most frequently addressed included involvement of relevant professional groups (8/12), external peer review of completed guidelines (9/12), and recommendations on methods for dissemination (8/12). Characteristics least often addressed were whether the system was piloted (3/12) and funder information (3/12)., Conclusions: Five systems for grading evidence about medical tests in guideline development addressed to differing degrees of explicitness the need for and appraisal of different bodies of evidence, the linking of such evidence, and its translation into recommendations. At present, no one system addressed the full complexity of gathering, assessing and linking different bodies of evidence.

Purpose: To estimate the frequency of distorted presentation and overinterpretation of results in diagnostic accuracy studies., Materials and Methods: MEDLINE was searched for diagnostic accuracy studies published between January and June 2010 in journals with an impact factor of 4 or higher. Articles included were primary studies of the accuracy of one or more tests in which the results were compared with a clinical reference standard. Two authors scored each article independently by using a pretested data-extraction form to identify actual overinterpretation and practices that facilitate overinterpretation, such as incomplete reporting of study methods or the use of inappropriate methods (potential overinterpretation). The frequency of overinterpretation was estimated in all studies and in a subgroup of imaging studies., Results: Of the 126 articles, 39 (31%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 23, 39) contained a form of actual overinterpretation, including 29 (23%; 95% CI: 16, 30) with an overly optimistic abstract, 10 (8%; 96% CI: 3%, 13%) with a discrepancy between the study aim and conclusion, and eight with conclusions based on selected subgroups. In our analysis of potential overinterpretation, authors of 89% (95% CI: 83%, 94%) of the studies did not include a sample size calculation, 88% (95% CI: 82%, 94%) did not state a test hypothesis, and 57% (95% CI: 48%, 66%) did not report CIs of accuracy measurements. In 43% (95% CI: 34%, 52%) of studies, authors were unclear about the intended role of the test, and in 3% (95% CI: 0%, 6%) they used inappropriate statistical tests. A subgroup analysis of imaging studies showed 16 (30%; 95% CI: 17%, 43%) and 53 (100%; 95% CI: 92%, 100%) contained forms of actual and potential overinterpretation, respectively., Conclusion: Overinterpretation and misreporting of results in diagnostic accuracy studies is frequent in journals with high impact factors., Supplemental Material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12120527/-/DC1., (© RSNA, 2013.)

Background: Systematic reviews that "compare" the accuracy of 2 or more tests often include different sets of studies for each test., Purpose: To investigate the availability of direct comparative studies of test accuracy and to assess whether summary estimates of accuracy differ between meta-analyses of noncomparative and comparative studies., Data Sources: Systematic reviews in any language from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1994 to October 2012., Study Selection: 1 of 2 assessors selected reviews that evaluated at least 2 tests and identified meta-analyses that included both noncomparative studies and comparative studies., Data Extraction: 1 of 3 assessors extracted data about review and study characteristics and test performance., Data Synthesis: 248 reviews compared test accuracy; of the 6915 studies, 2113 (31%) were comparative. Thirty-six reviews (with 52 meta-analyses) had adequate studies to compare results of noncomparative and comparative studies by using a hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic meta-regression model for each test comparison. In 10 meta-analyses, noncomparative studies ranked tests in the opposite order of comparative studies. A total of 25 meta-analyses showed more than a 2-fold discrepancy in the relative diagnostic odds ratio between noncomparative and comparative studies. Differences in accuracy estimates between noncomparative and comparative studies were greater than expected by chance (P &lt; 0.001)., Limitation: A paucity of comparative studies limited exploration of direction in bias., Conclusion: Evidence derived from noncomparative studies often differs from that derived from comparative studies. Robustly designed studies in which all patients receive all tests or are randomly assigned to receive one or other of the tests should be more routinely undertaken and are preferred for evidence to guide test selection., Primary Funding Source: National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom).

Objective: To identify and validate PubMed search filters for retrieving studies including children and to develop a new pediatric search filter for PubMed., Study Design: We developed 2 different datasets of studies to evaluate the performance of the identified pediatric search filters, expressed in terms of sensitivity, precision, specificity, accuracy, and number needed to read (NNR). An optimal search filter will have a high sensitivity and high precision with a low NNR., Results: In addition to the PubMed Limits: All Child: 0-18 years filter (in May 2012 renamed to PubMed Filter Child: 0-18 years), 6 search filters for identifying studies including children were identified: 3 developed by Kastner et al, 1 developed by BestBets, one by the Child Health Field, and 1 by the Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group. Three search filters (Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group, Child Health Field, and BestBets) had the highest sensitivity (99.3%, 99.5%, and 99.3%, respectively) but a lower precision (64.5%, 68.4%, and 66.6% respectively) compared with the other search filters. Two Kastner search filters had a high precision (93.0% and 93.7%, respectively) but a low sensitivity (58.5% and 44.8%, respectively). They failed to identify many pediatric studies in our datasets. The search terms responsible for false-positive results in the reference dataset were determined. With these data, we developed a new search filter for identifying studies with children in PubMed with an optimal sensitivity (99.5%) and precision (69.0%)., Conclusion: Search filters to identify studies including children either have a low sensitivity or a low precision with a high NNR. A new pediatric search filter with a high sensitivity and a low NNR has been developed., (Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Identification of post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL) is important due to the long and toxic treatment and the fact that PKDL patients may serve as a reservoir for visceral leishmaniasis (VL). We summarized the published literature about the accuracy of diagnostic tests for PKDL. We searched Medline for eligible studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of any test for PKDL. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Data were extracted from 21 articles including 43 separate studies. Twenty-seven studies evaluated serological tests (rK39 dipstick, ELISA, DAT, and leishmanin tests), six studies molecular tests, eight microscopy, and two cultures. Only a few of these studies reported a valid estimate of diagnostic accuracy, as most were case-control designs or used a reference standard with low sensitivity. The included studies were very heterogeneous, for example, due to a large variety of reference standards used. Hence, no summary estimates of sensitivity or specificity could be made. We recommend well-designed diagnostic accuracy trials that evaluate, side-by-side, all currently available diagnostics, including clinical symptoms, serological, antigen, molecular, and parasitological tests and possible use of statistical modelling to evaluate diagnostics when there is no suitable gold standard.

Background: Thyroid disease has been suggested to be associated with vitiligo. However, the outcomes of prevalence studies on thyroid disease in vitiligo vary widely., Objectives: To summarize and critically appraise current evidence of the prevalence of thyroid diseases in vitiligo., Methods: A systematic review was performed searching the electronic databases OVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE and PubMed. Guidelines for the critical appraisal of studies on prevalence of a health problem were adapted to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. Results were analysed in a meta-analysis with a risk ratio (RR)., Results: Forty-eight studies published between 1968 and 2012 met the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies (50%) were of fair methodological quality, whereas 18 studies (38%) were of poor quality and six studies (12%) were of good quality. Thyroid disease, autoimmune thyroid disease and presence of thyroid-specific autoantibodies showed a mean prevalence of, respectively, 15·1%, 14·3% and 20·8% in patients with vitiligo and an RR of, respectively, 1·9, 2·5 and 5·2 (all statistically significant). This review shows an increased prevalence and an increased risk of (autoimmune) thyroid disease in patients with vitiligo compared with nonvitiligo. This risk seems to increase with age., Conclusions: Clinicians should be aware of this increased risk in patients with vitiligo and should be attentive for symptoms of thyroid disease. To make recommendations on screening for thyroid disease in patients with vitiligo future research of good methodological quality, including differentiation of vitiligo types and the use of standardized outcome measures, is needed., (© 2012 The Authors. BJD © 2012 British Association of Dermatologists 2012.)

Objective: Meta-analysis of predictive values is usually discouraged because these values are directly affected by disease prevalence, but sensitivity and specificity sometimes show substantial heterogeneity as well. We propose a bivariate random-effects logitnormal model for the meta-analysis of the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of diagnostic tests., Study Design and Setting: Twenty-three meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy were reanalyzed. With separate models, we calculated summary estimates of the PPV and NPV and summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity. We compared these summary estimates, the goodness of fit of the two models, and the amount of heterogeneity of both approaches., Results: There were no substantial differences in the goodness of fit or amount of heterogeneity between both models. The median absolute difference between the projected PPV and NPV from the summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity and the summary estimates of PPV and NPV was 1% point (interquartile range, 0-2% points)., Conclusion: A model for the meta-analysis of predictive values fitted the data from a range of systematic reviews equally well as meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity. The choice for either model could be guided by considerations of the design used in the primary studies and sources of heterogeneity., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A range of molecular amplification techniques have been developed for the diagnosis of Human African Trypanosomiasis (HAT); however, careful evaluation of these tests must precede implementation to ensure their high clinical accuracy. Here, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of molecular amplification tests for HAT, the quality of articles and reasons for variation in accuracy., Methodology: Data from studies assessing diagnostic molecular amplification tests were extracted and pooled to calculate accuracy. Articles were included if they reported sensitivity and specificity or data whereby values could be calculated. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS and selected studies were analysed using the bivariate random effects model., Results: 16 articles evaluating molecular amplification tests fulfilled the inclusion criteria: PCR (n = 12), NASBA (n = 2), LAMP (n = 1) and a study comparing PCR and NASBA (n = 1). Fourteen articles, including 19 different studies were included in the meta-analysis. Summary sensitivity for PCR on blood was 99.0% (95% CI 92.8 to 99.9) and the specificity was 97.7% (95% CI 93.0 to 99.3). Differences in study design and readout method did not significantly change estimates although use of satellite DNA as a target significantly lowers specificity. Sensitivity and specificity of PCR on CSF for staging varied from 87.6% to 100%, and 55.6% to 82.9% respectively., Conclusion: Here, PCR seems to have sufficient accuracy to replace microscopy where facilities allow, although this conclusion is based on multiple reference standards and a patient population that was not always representative. Future studies should, therefore, include patients for which PCR may become the test of choice and consider well designed diagnostic accuracy studies to provide extra evidence on the value of PCR in practice. Another use of PCR for control of disease could be to screen samples collected from rural areas and test in reference laboratories, to spot epidemics quickly and direct resources appropriately.

Background:   Demonstration of adequate reliability and validity is sufficient for concluding that an instrument is applicable for descriptive and predictive purposes, but before we can confidently use an outcome measure in clinical trials, the responsiveness (synonymous with sensitivity to change) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) should be known. With this study, we aimed to assess responsiveness and MCID of four outcome measures used in atopic eczema: the Severity Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD), the objective SCORAD, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), and the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM)., Methods:   Data of three randomized controlled trials were used. To demonstrate responsiveness, we plotted receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. MCID was estimated using mean change scores of patients that showed a relevant improvement. Bland and Altman methods were used to quantify the limits of agreement., Results:   Area under the ROC curve for the SCORAD was 0.70 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.78], for the objective SCORAD, 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.77), for the EASI, 0.67 (95% CI: 0.60-0.76), and for the POEM, 0.67 (95% CI: 0.59-0.75). Scores above 0.70 represent a fair responsiveness. The MCID was 8.7 points for the SCORAD, 8.2 for the objective SCORAD, 6.6 for the EASI, and 3.4 for the POEM., Conclusion:   The objective SCORAD and SCORAD showed a fair responsiveness. The MCIDs are an important prerequisite for the interpretation of published eczema trials and for the planning/sample size estimation of future trials., (© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.)

Background: During pregnancy, malaria infection with Plasmodium falciparum or Plasmodium vivax is related to adverse maternal health and poor birth outcomes. Diagnosis of malaria, during pregnancy, is complicated by the absence or low parasite densities in peripheral blood. Diagnostic methods, other than microscopy, are needed for detection of placental malaria. Therefore, the diagnostic accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), detecting antigen, and molecular techniques (PCR), detecting DNA, for the diagnosis of Plasmodium infections in pregnancy was systematically reviewed., Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched for studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of RDTs, PCR, microscopy of peripheral and placental blood and placental histology for the detection of malaria infection (all species) in pregnant women., Results: The results of 49 studies were analysed in metandi (Stata), of which the majority described P. falciparum infections. Although both placental and peripheral blood microscopy cannot reliably replace histology as a reference standard for placental P. falciparum infection, many studies compared RDTs and PCR to these tests. The proportion of microscopy positives in placental blood (sensitivity) detected by peripheral blood microscopy, RDTs and PCR are respectively 72% [95% CI 62-80], 81% [95% CI 55-93] and 94% [95% CI 86-98]. The proportion of placental blood microscopy negative women that were negative in peripheral blood microscopy, RDTs and PCR (specificity) are 98% [95% CI 95-99], 94% [95% CI 76-99] and 77% [95% CI 71-82]. Based on the current data, it was not possible to determine if the false positives in RDTs and PCR are caused by sequestered parasites in the placenta that are not detected by placental microscopy., Conclusion: The findings suggest that RDTs and PCR may have good performance characteristics to serve as alternatives for the diagnosis of malaria in pregnancy, besides any other limitations and practical considerations concerning the use of these tests. Nevertheless, more studies with placental histology as reference test are urgently required to reliably determine the accuracy of RDTs and PCR for the diagnosis of placental malaria. P. vivax-infections have been neglected in diagnostic test accuracy studies of malaria in pregnancy.

In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.

There is no gold standard for a definite diagnosis of atopic dermatitis. For the time being, several lists of diagnostic criteria have been proposed, some of them in actual use. The Millennium Criteria have been proposed to diagnose atopic dermatitis and to differentiate it from atopiform dermatitis. Our aim was to further refine the Millennium Criteria into a manageable set that can differentiate between atopic and atopiform dermatitis and other entities. The hereby refined Millennium Criteria will be compared with the UK Working Party Criteria and the Hanifin & Rajka Criteria. Data of 210 included patients were used. After multiple logistic regression, a minimum set of five criteria was identified as best discriminators: (i) typical morphology; (ii) early age of onset; (iii) Dennie-Morgan fold; (iv) historical and (v) actual flexural involvement. The refined Millennium Criteria were constituted from these criteria. When comparing the different list for validity in diagnosing atopic dermatitis, the refined Millennium Criteria showed a sensitivity of 81.8% and a specificity of 98.8% compared to a sensitivity of 97.7% and specificity of 72.9% of the UK Criteria and a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 48.8% of the Hanifin & Rajka Criteria. This refinement and validity study shows that the refined Millennium Criteria are a valid tool to diagnose atopic and atopiform dermatitis in a hospital-based setting and therefore could be incorporated in clinical practice and trials., (© 2011 Japanese Dermatological Association.)

Background: Patients with severe atopic eczema frequently require systemic treatment to control their disease. Methotrexate and azathioprine are proposed as off-label treatment options, but direct comparisons are lacking., Objectives: We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of methotrexate versus azathioprine in adults with severe atopic eczema., Methods: Patients with severe atopic eczema were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either methotrexate (dosage, 10-22.5 mg/wk) or azathioprine (dosage, 1.5-2.5 mg/kg/d) for 12 weeks, followed by a 12-week follow-up period. Primary outcome was the mean change in the severity scoring of atopic dermatitis index after 12 weeks. Efficacy assessors blinded for allocation of treatment were used to perform clinical outcome assessment. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis., Results: Of the 45 patients screened, 42 were included. At week 12, patients in the methotrexate group had a mean relative reduction in the severity scoring of atopic dermatitis index of 42% (SD, 18%) compared with 39% (SD, 25%) in the azathioprine group (P = .52). Proportions of patients achieving at least mild disease and reductions on impact of quality of life, symptoms, and levels of thymus and activation-regulated chemokine were similar in both groups at weeks 12 and 24. No statistically significant differences were found in the number and severity of adverse events. Abnormalities in blood count were more common in the azathioprine group. No serious adverse events occurred., Conclusion: Both treatments achieved clinically relevant improvement and were safe in the short term. Methotrexate and azathioprine are appropriate options for the treatment of severe atopic eczema., (Copyright © 2011 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of four simplified molecular assays for the diagnosis of Trypanosoma brucei spp. or Leishmania ssp. in a multicentre ring trial with seven participating laboratories., Methods: The tests are based on PCR or NASBA amplification of the parasites nucleic acids followed by rapid read-out by oligochromatographic dipstick (PCR-OC and NASBA-OC)., Results: On purified nucleic acid specimens, the repeatability and reproducibility of the tests were Tryp-PRC-OC, 91.7% and 95.5%; Tryp-NASBA-OC, 95.8% and 100%; Leish-PCR-OC, 95.9% and 98.1%; Leish-NASBA-OC, 92.3% and 98.2%. On blood specimens spiked with parasites, the repeatability and reproducibility of the tests were Tryp-PRC-OC, 78.4% and 86.6%; Tryp-NASBA-OC, 81.5% and 89.0%; Leish-PCR-OC, 87.1% and 91.7%; Leish-NASBA-OC, 74.8% and 86.2%., Conclusion: As repeatability and reproducibility of the tests were satisfactory, further phase II and III evaluations in clinical and population specimens from disease endemic countries are justified.

Objectives: To determine a possible association between Apolipoprotein E (APOE)sigma4-allele and delirium in a large cohort and combining these current data with former studies in a meta-analysis., Design: Combination of a new prospective cohort study and meta-analysis., Setting: Medical department and orthopedic/traumatology department of University hospital from 2003 to 2007., Participants: A total of 656 patients aged 65 years and older acutely admitted with a medical diagnosis or after hip fracture., Measurements: Confusion Assessment Method for delirium, Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline-short form for predelirium global cognitive impairment, and Katz Index of Activities of Daily Living for functionality. APOE was genotyped by mass spectrometer. A meta-analysis was performed combining the current data with published studies analyzing the association between the APOE sigma4-allele and the delirium., Results: : The 49% of the 76 surgical patients and 35% of the 580 medical patients experienced delirium. Delirious patients were significantly older (82 versus 77 years) and had more frequently functional (66% versus 26%) and cognitive impairment (86% versus 29%) than nondelirious patients. The odds ratio (OR) for delirium adjusted for age, cognitive, and functional impairment of sigma4 carriers compared with non-sigma4 carriers was 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-2.6). Four studies were added to the meta-analysis, which included 1,099 patients in total. The OR for delirium in the meta-analysis was 1.6 (95% CI: 0.9-2.7) of sigma4 carriers compared with non-sigma4 carriers., Conclusions: This study and meta-analysis suggest an association between delirium and the APOE sigma4 allele.

Background: Several studies and systematic reviews have reported results that indicate that sensitivity and specificity may vary with prevalence., Study Design and Setting: We identify and explore mechanisms that may be responsible for sensitivity and specificity varying with prevalence and illustrate them with examples from the literature., Results: Clinical and artefactual variability may be responsible for changes in prevalence and accompanying changes in sensitivity and specificity. Clinical variability refers to differences in the clinical situation that may cause sensitivity and specificity to vary with prevalence. For example, a patient population with a higher disease prevalence may include more severely diseased patients, therefore, the test performs better in this population. Artefactual variability refers to effects on prevalence and accuracy associated with study design, for example, the verification of index test results by a reference standard. Changes in prevalence influence the extent of overestimation due to imperfect reference standard classification., Conclusions: Sensitivity and specificity may vary in different clinical populations, and prevalence is a marker for such differences. Clinicians are advised to base their decisions on studies that most closely match their own clinical situation, using prevalence to guide the detection of differences in study population or study design.

The aim of this article is to review the accuracy of tests purported to be predictive of pre-eclampsia, a major cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity worldwide. A review of systematic reviews was done. A total of 219 studies were evaluated for the accuracy of 27 tests for predicting pre-eclampsia. Study quality assessment and data abstraction were performed using piloted proformas. Bivariate meta-analyses were used to synthesize data. Levels of sensitivity and specificity were measured. There were deficiencies in many areas of methodology including blinding, test description, and reference standard adequacy. No test had a high level of both sensitivity and specificity of greater than 90%. Where multiple studies were available, only BMI > 34, alpha-fetoprotein, fibronectin (cellular and total), and uterine artery Doppler (bilateral notching) measurements reached specificity above 90%. Only Doppler (any/unilateral notching, resistance index, and combinations) measurements were over 60% sensitive. Studies were of variable quality and most tests performed poorly. Further research should focus on tests which offer much higher levels of sensitivity than tests currently available. High sensitivity is a more useful attribute in early detection of pre-eclampsia than specificity because consideration of benefits, harms and costs indicates a much greater preference for minimizing false negatives than false positives, although the ideal would be to avoid both.

More and more systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies are being published, but they can be methodologically challenging. In this paper, the authors present some of the recent developments in the methodology for conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Restrictive electronic search filters are discouraged, as is the use of summary quality scores. Methods for meta-analysis should take into account the paired nature of the estimates and their dependence on threshold. Authors of these reviews are advised to use the hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic or the bivariate model for the data analysis. Challenges that remain are the poor reporting of original diagnostic test accuracy studies and difficulties with the interpretation of the results of diagnostic test accuracy research.

Background: Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is the most common life-threatening opportunistic invasive mycosis in immunocompromized patients. A test for IA needs to be not too invasive and not too big a burden for the already weakened patient. The serum galactomannan ELISA seems to have potential for both requirements., Objectives: To obtain summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of galactomannan detection in serum for the diagnosis of IA., Search Strategy: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science with both Medical Headings and text words for both aspergillosis and the sandwich ELISA. We checked reference lists of included studies and review articles for additional studies., Selection Criteria: Cross-sectional studies, case-control designs and consecutive series of patients assessing the diagnostic accuracy of galactomannan detection for the diagnosis of IA in patients with neutropenia or patients whose neutrophils are functionally compromised were included. The reference standard was composed of the criteria given by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and the Mycoses Study Group (MSG)., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed quality and extracted data, Main Results: Thirty studies were included in the meta-analyses, with a median prevalence of IA (proven or probable) of 7.7%. Seven of these (901 patients) reported results for an Optical Density Index (ODI) of 0.5 as cut-off value. The overall sensitivity in these studies was 78% (61% to 89%) and overall specificity was 81% (72% to 88%). Twelve studies (1744 patients) reported the results for cut-off value of 1.0 ODI, overall sensitivity was 75% (59% to 86%) and mean specificity 91% (84% to 95%). Seventeen studies (2600 patients) reported the results for cut-off value 1.5 ODI, sensitivity was 64% (50% to 77%) and mean specificity 95% (91% to 97%)., Authors' Conclusions: At a cut-off value 0.5 ODI in a population of 100 patients with a disease prevalence of 8% (overall median prevalence), 2 patients who have IA, will be missed (sensitivity 78%, 22% false negatives), and 17 patients will be treated or further referred unnecessarily (specificity of 81%, 19% false negatives). If we use the test at cut-off value 1.5 in the same population, that will mean that 3 IA patients will be missed (sensitivity 64%, 36% false negatives) and 5 patients will be treated or referred unnecessarily (specificity of 95%, 5% false negatives). These numbers should however be interpreted with caution, because the results were very heterogeneous.

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) has a wide spectrum of dermatological manifestations and despite various validated sets of diagnostic criteria that have been developed over the past decades, there is disagreement about its definition. Nevertheless, clinical studies require valid diagnostic criteria for reliable and reproducible results., Objective: To summarize the evidence concerning the validity of diagnostic criteria for AD., Methods: All data sources were identified through searches on Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy tool (QUADAS) was used. Results are presented in a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plot., Results: Out of the 20 articles that met the criteria, 27 validation studies were identified. In two studies concerning Hanifin and Rajka diagnostic criteria sensitivity and specificity ranged from 87.9% to 96.0% and from 77.6% to 93.8%, respectively. Nineteen validation studies of the U.K. diagnostic criteria showed sensitivity and specificity ranging from 10% to 100% and 89.3% to 99.1%, respectively. Three validation studies concerning the Schultz-Larsen criteria showed sensitivity from 88% to 94.4% and specificity from 77.6% to 95.9%. In one article concerning the criteria of Diepgen, the sensitivity ranged from 83.0% to 87.7% and the specificity from 83.9% to 87.0%. One article studied the Kang and Tian criteria and reported 95.5% sensitivity and 100% specificity. One article validating the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) criteria showed a positive and negative predictive value of 48.8% and 91.1%, respectively., Conclusion: With this systematic review of the existing sets of diagnostic criteria for AD a varying number of validation studies with varying methodological quality was found. The U.K. diagnostic criteria are the most extensively validated. However, improvement of methodological design for validation studies and uniformity in well-validated and applicable diagnostic criteria are needed to improve future intervention studies and to compare study results.

Background: Optimal cutoff values for tests results involving continuous variables are often derived in a data-driven way. This approach, however, may lead to overly optimistic measures of diagnostic accuracy. We evaluated the magnitude of the bias in sensitivity and specificity associated with data-driven selection of cutoff values and examined potential solutions to reduce this bias., Methods: Different sample sizes, distributions, and prevalences were used in a simulation study. We compared data-driven estimates of accuracy based on the Youden index with the true values and calculated the median bias. Three alternative approaches (assuming a specific distribution, leave-one-out, smoothed ROC curve) were examined for their ability to reduce this bias., Results: The magnitude of bias caused by data-driven optimization of cutoff values was inversely related to sample size. If the true values for sensitivity and specificity are both 84%, the estimates in studies with a sample size of 40 will be approximately 90%. If the sample size increases to 200, the estimates will be 86%. The distribution of the test results had little impact on the amount of bias when sample size was held constant. More robust methods of optimizing cutoff values were less prone to bias, but the performance deteriorated if the underlying assumptions were not met., Conclusions: Data-driven selection of the optimal cutoff value can lead to overly optimistic estimates of sensitivity and specificity, especially in small studies. Alternative methods can reduce this bias, but finding robust estimates for cutoff values and accuracy requires considerable sample sizes.

Objectives: To investigate the accuracy of predictive tests for pre-eclampsia and the effectiveness of preventative interventions for pre-eclampsia. Also to assess the cost-effectiveness of strategies (test-intervention combinations) to predict and prevent pre-eclampsia., Data Sources: Major electronic databases were searched to January 2005 at least., Review Methods: Systematic reviews were carried out for test accuracy and effectiveness. Quality assessment was carried out using standard tools. For test accuracy, meta-analyses used a bivariate approach. Effectiveness reviews were conducted under the auspices of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group and used standard Cochrane review methods. The economic evaluation was from an NHS perspective and used a decision tree model., Results: For the 27 tests reviewed, the quality of included studies was generally poor. Some tests appeared to have high specificity, but at the expense of compromised sensitivity. Tests that reached specificities above 90% were body mass index greater than 34, alpha-foetoprotein and uterine artery Doppler (bilateral notching). The only Doppler test with a sensitivity of over 60% was resistance index and combinations of indices. A few tests not commonly found in routine practice, such as kallikreinuria and SDS-PAGE proteinuria, seemed to offer the promise of high sensitivity, without compromising specificity, but these would require further investigation. For the 16 effectiveness reviews, the quality of included studies was variable. The largest review was of antiplatelet agents, primarily low-dose aspirin, and included 51 trials (36,500 women). This was the only review where the intervention was shown to prevent both pre-eclampsia and its consequences for the baby. Calcium supplementation also reduced the risk of pre-eclampsia, but with some uncertainty about the impact on outcomes for the baby. The only other intervention associated with a reduction in RR of pre-eclampsia was rest at home, with or without a nutritional supplement, for women with normal blood pressure. However, this review included just two small trials and its results should be interpreted with caution. The cost of most of the tests was modest, ranging from 5 pounds for blood tests such as serum uric acid to approximately 20 pounds for Doppler tests. Similarly, the cost of most interventions was also modest. In contrast, the best estimate of additional average cost associated with an average case of pre-eclampsia was high at approximately 9000 pounds. The results of the modelling revealed that prior testing with the test accuracy sensitivities and specificities identified appeared to offer little as a way of improving cost-effectiveness. Based on the evidence reviewed, none of the tests appeared sufficiently accurate to be clinically useful and the results of the model favoured no-test/treat-all strategies. Rest at home without any initial testing appeared to be the most cost-effective 'test-treatment' combination. Calcium supplementation to all women, without any initial testing, appeared to be the second most cost-effective. The economic model provided little support that any form of Doppler test has sufficiently high sensitivity and specificity to be cost-effective for the early identification of pre-eclampsia. It also suggested that the pattern of cost-effectiveness was no different in high-risk mothers than the low-risk mothers considered in the base case., Conclusions: The tests evaluated are not sufficiently accurate, in our opinion, to suggest their routine use in clinical practice. Calcium and antiplatelet agents, primarily low-dose aspirin, were the interventions shown to prevent pre-eclampsia. The most cost-effective approach to reducing pre-eclampsia is likely to be the provision of an effective, affordable and safe intervention applied to all mothers without prior testing to assess levels of risk. It is probably premature to suggest the implementation of a treat-all intervention strategy at present, however the feasibility and acceptability of this to women could be explored. Rigorous evaluation is needed of tests with modest cost whose initial assessments suggest that they may have high levels of both sensitivity and specificity. Similarly, there is a need for high-quality, adequately powered randomised controlled trials to investigate whether interventions such as advice to rest are indeed effective in reducing pre-eclampsia. In future, an economic model should be developed that considers not just pre-eclampsia, but other related outcomes, particularly those relevant to the infant such as perinatal death, preterm birth and small for gestational age. Such a modelling project should make provision for primary data collection on the safety of interventions and their associated costs.

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of body mass index (BMI) (pre-pregnancy or at booking) in predicting pre-eclampsia and to explore its potential for clinical application., Design: Systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis., Setting: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, MEDION, manual searching of reference lists of review articles and eligible primary articles, and contact with experts., Population: Pregnant women at any level of risk in any healthcare setting., Methods: Reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, quality, and accuracy. No language restrictions., Main Outcome Measures: Pooled sensitivities and specificities (95% CI), a summary receiver operating characteristic curve, and corresponding likelihood ratios (LRs). The potential value of BMI was assessed by combining its predictive capacity for different prevalences of pre-eclampsia and the therapeutic effectiveness (relative risk 0.90) of aspirin., Results: A total of 36 studies, testing 1,699,073 pregnant women (60,584 women with pre-eclampsia), met the selection criteria. The median incidence of pre-eclampsia was 3.9% (interquartile range 1.4-6.8). The area under the curve was 0.64 with 93% of heterogeneity explained by threshold differences. Pooled estimates (95% CI) for all studies with a BMI > or = 25 were 47% (33-61) for sensitivity and 73% (64-83) for specificity; and 21% (12-31) and 92% (89-95) for a BMI > or = 35. Corresponding LRs (95% CI) were 1.7 (0.3-11.9) for BMI > or = 25 and 0.73 (0.22-2.45) for BMI < 25, and 2.7 (1.0-7.3) for BMI > or = 35 and 0.86 (0.68-1.07) for BMI < 35. The number needed to treat with aspirin to prevent one case of pre-eclampsia ranges from 714 (no testing, low-risk women) to 37 (BMI > or = 35, high-risk women)., Conclusions: BMI appears to be a fairly weak predictor for pre-eclampsia. Although BMI is virtually free of cost, noninvasive, and ubiquitously available, its usefulness as a stand-alone test for risk stratification must await formal cost-utility analysis. The findings of this review may serve as input for such analyses.

The purpose of this study was to review systematically all studies that assessed the accuracy of maternal plasma fibronectin as a serum marker for early prediction of pre-eclampsia. We therefore assessed studies that reported on fibronectin as serum marker for pre-eclampsia before the 25th gestational week. For the selected studies, sensitivity and specificity were calculated and plotted in ROC-space. We included 12 studies, of which only 5 studies reported sufficient data to calculate accuracy estimates, such as sensitivity and specificity. These five studies reported on 573 pregnant women of whom 109 developed pre-eclampsia. At a sensitivity of at least 50%, specificities ranged between 72 and 96% for cellular fibronectin. For total fibronectin, these numbers were 42-94%. Fibronectin seems to be a promising marker for the prediction of pre-eclampsia, however, further studies are needed to determine whether the accuracy of this test is sufficient to be clinically relevant.

Objective: To determine the usefulness of methodological filters in search strategies for diagnostic studies in systematic reviews., Study Design and Setting: We made an inventory of existing methodological search filters for diagnostic accuracy studies and applied them in PubMed to a reference set derived from 27 published systematic reviews in a broad range of clinical fields. Outcome measures were the fraction of not identified relevant studies and the reduction in the number of studies to read., Results: We tested 12 search filters. Of the studies included in the systematic reviews, 2%-28% did not pass the sensitive search filters, 4%-24% did not pass the accurate filters, and 39%-42% did not pass the specific filters. Decrease in number-needed-to-read when a search filter was used in a search strategy for a diagnostic systematic review varied from 0% to 77%., Conclusion: The use of methodological filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to omission of a considerable number of relevant studies that would otherwise be included. When preparing a systematic review, it may be preferable to avoid using methodological filters.