Search

Objectives: No consensus exists on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) utilization for breast cancer detection. We performed a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis comparing DBT, combined DBT and digital mammography (DM), and DM alone for breast cancer detection in average-risk women., Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until September 2018. Comparative design studies reporting on the diagnostic accuracy of DBT and/or DM for breast cancer detection were included. Demographic, methodologic, and diagnostic accuracy data were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. Accuracy metrics were pooled using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. The impact of multiple covariates was assessed using meta-regression., Prospero Id: CRD 42018111287., Results: Thirty-eight studies reporting on 488,099 patients (13,923 with breast cancer) were included. Eleven studies were at low risk of bias. DBT alone, combined DBT and DM, and DM alone demonstrated sensitivities of 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83-92), 88% (CI 83-92), and 79% (CI 75-82), as well as specificities of 84% (CI 76-89), 81% (CI 73-88), and 79% (CI 71-85), respectively. The greater sensitivities of DBT alone and combined DBT and DM compared to DM alone were preserved in the combined meta-regression models accounting for other covariates (p = 0.003-0.006). No significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between DBT alone and combined DBT and DM was identified (p = 0.175-0.581)., Conclusions: DBT is more sensitive than DM, while the addition of DM to DBT provides no additional diagnostic benefit. Consideration of these findings in breast cancer imaging guidelines is recommended., Key Points: • Digital breast tomosynthesis with or without additional digital mammography is more sensitive in detecting breast cancer than digital mammography alone in women at average risk for breast cancer. • The addition of digital mammography to digital breast tomosynthesis provides no additional diagnostic benefit in detecting breast cancer compared to digital breast tomosynthesis alone. • The specificity of digital breast tomosynthesis with or without additional digital mammography is no different than digital mammography alone in the detection of breast cancer.

Objectives: The aim of the study was to develop a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) summary of findings (SoF) table format that displays the critical information from a network meta-analysis (NMA)., Study Design and Setting: We applied a user experience model for data analysis based on four rounds of semistructured interviews., Results: We interviewed 32 stakeholders who conduct or use MA. Four rounds of interviews produced six candidate NMA-SoF tables. Users found a final NMA-SoF table that included the following components highly acceptable: (1) details of the clinical question (PICO), (2) a plot depicting network geometry, (3) relative and absolute effect estimates, (4) certainty of evidence, (5) ranking of treatments, and (6) interpretation of findings., Conclusion: Using stakeholder feedback, we developed a new GRADE NMA-SoF table that includes the relevant components that facilitate understanding NMA findings and health decision-making., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: The association of American Medical Association's (AMA) Guides edition with impairment ratings is uncertain., Methods: We used data from a consecutive sample of 249 injured workers referred for an independent evaluation 10 months before and after assessors switched from the 5th to the 6th edition of the AMA Guides., Results: The median whole person impairment rating was 7.0% (interquartile range [IQR]: 4 to 14) for 131 claimants assessed with the 5th edition of the Guides, and 4.0% (IQR: 2 to 8) for 118 claimants assessed with the 6th edition (P-value for difference: 0.002). Multivariable analysis showed a 36.4% relative reduction (95% confidence interval [CI] 17.2% to 57.3%) in impairment rating with the 6th edition of the Guides versus the 5th edition., Conclusions: The 6th edition of the AMA Guides provides systematically lower impairment ratings for injured workers than the 5th edition.

Background: The aim of this study was to systematically synthesize the large volume of literature reporting on the association between operative duration and complications across various surgical specialties and procedure types., Methods: An electronic search of PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2005 to January 2015 was conducted. Sixty-six observational studies met the inclusion criteria., Results: Pooled analyses showed that the likelihood of complications increased significantly with prolonged operative duration, approximately doubling with operative time thresholds exceeding 2 or more hours. Meta-analyses also demonstrated a 14% increase in the likelihood of complications for every 30 min of additional operating time., Conclusions: Prolonged operative time is associated with an increase in the risk of complications. Given the adverse consequences of complications, decreased operative times should be a universal goal for surgeons, hospitals, and policy-makers. Future study is recommended on the evaluation of interventions targeted to reducing operating time., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 10% to 40% of the population. It reduces quality of life and school and work performance and is a frequent reason for office visits in general practice. Medical costs are large, but avoidable costs associated with lost work productivity are even larger than those incurred by asthma. New evidence has accumulated since the last revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines in 2010, prompting its update., Objective: We sought to provide a targeted update of the ARIA guidelines., Methods: The ARIA guideline panel identified new clinical questions and selected questions requiring an update. We performed systematic reviews of health effects and the evidence about patients' values and preferences and resource requirements (up to June 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision frameworks to develop recommendations., Results: The 2016 revision of the ARIA guidelines provides both updated and new recommendations about the pharmacologic treatment of AR. Specifically, it addresses the relative merits of using oral H 1 -antihistamines, intranasal H 1 -antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and leukotriene receptor antagonists either alone or in combination. The ARIA guideline panel provides specific recommendations for the choice of treatment and the rationale for the choice and discusses specific considerations that clinicians and patients might want to review to choose the management most appropriate for an individual patient., Conclusions: Appropriate treatment of AR might improve patients' quality of life and school and work productivity. ARIA recommendations support patients, their caregivers, and health care providers in choosing the optimal treatment., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To conduct (1) a systematic survey of the reporting quality of simulation studies dealing with how to handle missing participant data (MPD) in randomized control trials and (2) summarize the findings of these studies., Study Design and Setting: We included simulation studies comparing statistical methods dealing with continuous MPD in randomized controlled trials addressing bias, precision, coverage, accuracy, power, type-I error, and overall ranking. For the reporting of simulation studies, we adapted previously developed criteria for reporting quality and applied them to eligible studies., Results: Of 16,446 identified citations, the 60 eligible generally had important limitations in reporting, particularly in reporting simulation procedures. Of the 60 studies, 47 addressed ignorable and 32 addressed nonignorable data. For ignorable missing data, mixed model was most frequently the best on overall ranking (9 times best, 34.6% of times tested) and bias (10, 55.6%). Multiple imputation was also performed well. For nonignorable data, mixed model was most frequently the best on overall ranking (7, 46.7%) and bias (8, 57.1%). Mixed model performance varied on other criteria. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) was very seldom the best performing, and for nonignorable MPD frequently the worst., Conclusion: Simulation studies addressing methods to deal with MPD suffered from serious limitations. The mixed model approach was superior to other methods in terms of overall performance and bias. LOCF performed worst., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To provide a perspective on the current practice of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of diagnostic strategies focusing on patient-important outcomes., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE and included RCTs published in full-text reports that evaluated alternative diagnostic strategies., Results: Of 56,912 unique citations, we sampled 7,500 and included 103 eligible RCTs, therefore suggesting that MEDLINE includes approximately 781 diagnostic RCTs. The 103 eligible trials reported on: mortality (n = 41; 39.8%); morbidities (n = 63; 61.2%); symptoms/quality of life/functional status (n = 14; 13.6%); and on composite end points (n = 10; 9.7%). Of the studies that reported statistically significant results (n = 12; 11.6%), we judged 7 (58.3%) as at low risk of bias with respect to missing outcome data and 4 (33.3%) as at low risk of bias regarding blinding. Of the 41 RCTs that reported on mortality, only one (2.4%) reported statistically significant results. Of 63 RCTs addressing morbidity outcomes, 11 (17.5%) reported statistically significant results, all of which reported relative effects of greater than 20%., Conclusion: RCTs of diagnostic tests are not uncommon, and sometimes suggest benefits on patient-important outcomes but often suffer from limitations in sample size and conduct., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: There are a large number of primary researches on the prevalence of major depressive disorder (MDD) in Iran; however, their findings are varied considerably. A systematic review was performed in order to summarize the findings., Methods: Electronic and manual searches in international and Iranian journals were conducted to find relevant studies reporting MDD prevalence. To maximize the sensitivity of the search, the references of relevant papers were also explored. We explored the potential sources of heterogeneity such as diagnostic tools, gender and other characteristics using meta-regression model. The combined mean prevalence rates were calculated for genders, studies using each type of instruments and for each province using meta-analysis method., Results: From 44 articles included in the systematic review, 24 reported current prevalence and 20 reported lifetime prevalence of MDD. The overall estimation of current prevalence of MDD was 4.1% (95% CI: 3.1-5.1). Women were 1.95 (95% CI: 1.55-2.45) times more likely to have MDD. The current prevalence of MDD in urban inhabitants was not significantly different from rural inhabitants. The analysis identified the variations in diagnostic tools as an important source of heterogeneity., Conclusions: Although there is not adequate information on MDD prevalence in some areas of Iran, the overall current prevalence of MDD in the country is high and females are at the greater risk of disease.

There are many descriptive studies on hypertension in Iran, mostly assessing the prevalence of the disease and its associations with various risk factors. In order to gain a better insight into the epidemiology of hypertension in Iran and its heterogeneity around the country, we systematically reviewed all available studies and analyzed their findings using meta-analysis methods. All published papers in Iranian and international journals, final reports of research projects, papers presented in relevant congresses, and also all dissertations of medical students were reviewed using standard keywords. Studies published during 1996 - 2004, which met the eligibility criteria were entered into meta-analysis. We found 38 studies, of which 29 were eligible with a total sample size of 93,661 subjects. Also, we accessed the results of a very large national survey, which reported the prevalence of hypertension in 27 provinces. Our estimation for the overall prevalence of hypertension in 30 - 55 and >55-year-old population were around 23% and 50%, respectively. The prevalence in men was 1.3% less than that in women (P<0.0001). The mean diastolic blood pressure in men was 0.62 mmHg less than that in women while the mean systolic blood pressure was 0.67 mmHg greater.We found a sharp increase in the prevalence of hypertension by age, and also greater risk in females. It seems that the overall prevalence of hypertension in Iran is considerable. Iranian health system should pay more attention to control and treatment of hypertension in general population.