Search

Background: Timely diagnosis of influenza can help clinical management. Purpose: To examine the accuracy of rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) in adults and children with influenza-like illness and evaluate factors associated with higher accuracy. Data Sources: PubMed and EMBASE through December 2011; BIOSIS and Web of Science through March 2010; and citations of articles, guidelines, reviews, and manufacturers. Study Selection: Studies that compared RIDTs with a reference standard of either reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (first choice) or viral culture. Data Extraction: Reviewers abstracted study data by using a standardized form and assessed quality by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria. Data Synthesis: 159 studies evaluated 26 RIDTs, and 35% were conducted during the H1N1 pandemic. Failure to report whether results were assessed in a blinded manner and the basis for patient recruitment were important quality concerns. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 62.3% (95% CI, 57.9% to 66.6%) and 98.2% (CI, 97.5% to 98.7%), respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 34.5 (CI, 23.8 to 45.2) and 0.38 (CI, 0.34 to 0.43), respectively. Sensitivity estimates were highly heterogeneous, which was partially explained by lower sensitivity in adults (53.9% [CI, 47.9% to 59.8%]) than in children (66.6% [CI, 61.6% to 71.7%]) and a higher sensitivity for influenza A (64.6% [CI, 59.0% to 70.1%) than for influenza B (52.2% [CI, 45.0% to 59.3%). Limitation: Incomplete reporting limited the ability to assess the effect of important factors, such as specimen type and duration of influenza symptoms, on diagnostic accuracy. Conclusion: Influenza can be ruled in but not ruled out through the use of RIDTs. Sensitivity varies across populations, but it is higher in children than in adults and for influenza A than for influenza B. Primary Funding Source: Canadian Institutes of Health Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guideline development on testing is known to be difficult for guideline developers. It requires consideration of various aspects, such as accuracy, purpose of testing, and consequences on management and people-important outcomes. This can be outlined in a test-management pathway. We aimed to create and user-test a step-by-step guide for guideline developers for designing a test-management pathway., Methods: Developmental design with a co-creative strategy. We created a draft step-by-step guide, that was user tested in a workshop with 19 experts, and by interviewing 7 guideline panel members., Results: Our proposed guide consists of five blocks of signalling questions: patients/population, index test(s), current practice/comparison/control, people-important outcomes, and the link between testing and outcome(s). The user testing led to refinement of the signalling questions, the use of inclusive terminology, and addition of a test-management pathway figure with detailed explanation., Conclusions: The step-by-step guide for formulating focused guideline questions regarding healthcare related testing can help in identifying relevant characteristics of the population, tests, and outcomes and to create a test management pathway. This should facilitate the formulation of evidence-based guideline recommendations about healthcare related testing., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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

Objectives: To define the minimum knowledge required for guideline panel members (healthcare professionals and consumers) involved in developing recommendations about healthcare related testing., Study Design and Setting: A developmental study with a multistaged approach. We derived a first set of knowledge components from literature and subsequently performed semistructured interviews with 9 experts. We refined the set of knowledge components and checked it with the interviewees for final approval., Results: Understanding the test-management pathway, for example, how test results should be used in context of decisions about interventions, is the key knowledge component. The final list includes 26 items on the following topics: health question, test-management pathway, target population, test, test result, interpretation of test results and subsequent management, and impact on people important outcomes. For each item, the required level of knowledge is defined., Conclusion: We developed a list of knowledge components required for guideline panels to formulate recommendations on healthcare related testing. The list could be used to design specific training programs for guideline panel members when developing recommendations about tests and testing strategies in healthcare., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest M.K.T is GIN member and member of the GRADE Working Group. J.J.A. de Beer is GIN member and member of the GRADE Working Group. R.A.M. is a member of the GRADE working Group and ex-member of the GRADE Guidance Group and the GRADE test and diagnosis project group. C.S. is GIN member and past chair of the GIN PUBLIC working group (2020), member of the Guideline Commission of the German Association of the scientific medical societies, and chair of the German Health Literacy Network. H.J.S. is co-chair of the GRADE Working Group, chair of the GIN board, and head of the INGUIDE steering committee. M.W.L. is member of the GRADE Guidance Group, member of the GIN board, and INGUIDE instructor., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

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

Background: Prenatal ultrasound is widely used to screen for structural anomalies before birth. While this is traditionally done in the second trimester, there is an increasing use of first-trimester ultrasound for early detection of lethal and certain severe structural anomalies., Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in detecting fetal structural anomalies before 14 and 24 weeks' gestation in low-risk and unselected pregnant women and to compare the current two main prenatal screening approaches: a single second-trimester scan (single-stage screening) and a first- and second-trimester scan combined (two-stage screening) in terms of anomaly detection before 24 weeks' gestation., Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science), Arts & Humanities Citation Index and Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science) from 1 January 1997 to 22 July 2022. We limited our search to studies published after 1997 and excluded animal studies, reviews and case reports. No further restrictions were applied. We also screened reference lists and citing articles of each of the included studies., Selection Criteria: Studies were eligible if they included low-risk or unselected pregnant women undergoing a first- and/or second-trimester fetal anomaly scan, conducted at 11 to 14 or 18 to 24 weeks' gestation, respectively. The reference standard was detection of anomalies at birth or postmortem., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently undertook study selection, quality assessment (QUADAS-2), data extraction and evaluation of the certainty of evidence (GRADE approach). We used univariate random-effects logistic regression models for the meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity., Main Results: Eighty-seven studies covering 7,057,859 fetuses (including 25,202 with structural anomalies) were included. No study was deemed low risk across all QUADAS-2 domains. Main methodological concerns included risk of bias in the reference standard domain and risk of partial verification. Applicability concerns were common in studies evaluating first-trimester scans and two-stage screening in terms of patient selection due to frequent recruitment from single tertiary centres without exclusion of referrals. We reported ultrasound accuracy for fetal structural anomalies overall, by severity, affected organ system and for 46 specific anomalies. Detection rates varied widely across categories, with the highest estimates of sensitivity for thoracic and abdominal wall anomalies and the lowest for gastrointestinal anomalies across all tests. The summary sensitivity of a first-trimester scan was 37.5% for detection of structural anomalies overall (95% confidence interval (CI) 31.1 to 44.3; low-certainty evidence) and 91.3% for lethal anomalies (95% CI 83.9 to 95.5; moderate-certainty evidence), with an overall specificity of 99.9% (95% CI 99.9 to 100; low-certainty evidence). Two-stage screening had a combined sensitivity of 83.8% (95% CI 74.7 to 90.1; low-certainty evidence), while single-stage screening had a sensitivity of 50.5% (95% CI 38.5 to 62.4; very low-certainty evidence). The specificity of two-stage screening was 99.9% (95% CI 99.7 to 100; low-certainty evidence) and for single-stage screening, it was 99.8% (95% CI 99.2 to 100; moderate-certainty evidence). Indirect comparisons suggested superiority of two-stage screening across all analyses regarding sensitivity, with no significant difference in specificity. However, the certainty of the evidence is very low due to the absence of direct comparisons., Authors' Conclusions: A first-trimester scan has the potential to detect lethal and certain severe anomalies with high accuracy before 14 weeks' gestation, despite its limited overall sensitivity. Conversely, two-stage screening shows high accuracy in detecting most fetal structural anomalies before 24 weeks' gestation with high sensitivity and specificity. In a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 fetuses, the first-trimester scan is expected to correctly identify 113 out of 124 fetuses with lethal anomalies (91.3%) and 665 out of 1776 fetuses with any anomaly (37.5%). However, 79 false-positive diagnoses are anticipated among 98,224 fetuses (0.08%). Two-stage screening is expected to correctly identify 1448 out of 1776 cases of structural anomalies overall (83.8%), with 118 false positives (0.1%). In contrast, single-stage screening is expected to correctly identify 896 out of 1776 cases before 24 weeks' gestation (50.5%), with 205 false-positive diagnoses (0.2%). This represents a difference of 592 fewer correct identifications and 88 more false positives compared to two-stage screening. However, it is crucial to acknowledge the uncertainty surrounding the additional benefits of two-stage versus single-stage screening, as there are no studies directly comparing them. Moreover, the evidence supporting the accuracy of first-trimester ultrasound and two-stage screening approaches primarily originates from studies conducted in single tertiary care facilities, which restricts the generalisability of the results of this meta-analysis to the broader population., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Echocardiogram is the reference standard for the diagnosis of haemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus (hsPDA) in preterm infants. A simple blood assay for brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) may be useful in the diagnosis and management of hsPDA, but a summary of the diagnostic accuracy has not been reviewed recently., Objectives: Primary objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the cardiac biomarkers BNP and NT-proBNP for diagnosis of haemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus (hsPDA) in preterm neonates. Our secondary objectives were: to compare the accuracy of BNP and NT-proBNP; and to explore possible sources of heterogeneity among studies evaluating BNP and NT-proBNP, including type of commercial assay, chronological age of the infant at testing, gestational age at birth, whether used to initiate medical or surgical treatment, test threshold, and criteria of the reference standard (type of echocardiographic parameter used for diagnosis, clinical symptoms or physical signs if data were available)., Search Methods: We searched the following databases in September 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Web of Science. We also searched clinical trial registries and conference abstracts. We checked references of included studies and conducted cited reference searches of included studies. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches or use methodological filters, so as to maximise sensitivity., Selection Criteria: We included prospective or retrospective, cohort or cross-sectional studies, which evaluated BNP or NT-proBNP (index tests) in preterm infants (participants) with suspected hsPDA (target condition) in comparison with echocardiogram (reference standard)., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently screened title/abstracts and full-texts, resolving any inclusion disagreements through discussion or with a third reviewer. We extracted data from included studies to create 2 × 2 tables. Two independent assessors performed quality assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic-Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS 2) tool. We excluded studies that did not report data in sufficient detail to construct 2 × 2 tables, and where this information was not available from the primary investigators. We used bivariate and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) random-effects models for meta-analysis and generated summary receiver operating characteristic space (ROC) curves. Since both BNP and NTproBNP are continuous variables, sensitivity and specificity were reported at multiple thresholds. We dealt with the threshold effect by reporting summary ROC curves without summary points., Main Results: We included 34 studies: 13 evaluated BNP and 21 evaluated NT-proBNP in the diagnosis of hsPDA. Studies varied by methodological quality, type of commercial assay, thresholds, age at testing, gestational age and whether the assay was used to initiate medical or surgical therapy. We noted some variability in the definition of hsPDA among the included studies. For BNP, the summary curve is reported in the ROC space (13 studies, 768 infants, low-certainty evidence). The estimated specificities from the ROC curve at fixed values of sensitivities at median (83%), lower and upper quartiles (79% and 92%) were 93.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 77.8 to 98.4), 95.5% (95% CI 83.6 to 98.9) and 81.1% (95% CI 50.6 to 94.7), respectively. Subgroup comparisons revealed differences by type of assay and better diagnostic accuracy at lower threshold cut-offs (< 250 pg/ml compared to ≥ 250 pg/ml), testing at gestational age < 30 weeks and chronological age at testing at one to three days. Data were insufficient for subgroup analysis of whether the BNP testing was indicated for medical or surgical management of PDA. For NT-proBNP, the summary ROC curve is reported in the ROC space (21 studies, 1459 infants, low-certainty evidence). The estimated specificities from the ROC curve at fixed values of sensitivities at median (92%), lower and upper quartiles (85% and 94%) were 83.6% (95% CI 73.3 to 90.5), 90.6% (95% CI 83.8 to 94.7) and 79.4% (95% CI 67.5 to 87.8), respectively. Subgroup analyses by threshold (< 6000 pg/ml and ≥ 6000 pg/ml) did not reveal any differences. Subgroup analysis by mean gestational age (< 30 weeks vs 30 weeks and above) showed better accuracy with < 30 weeks, and chronological age at testing (days one to three vs over three) showed testing at days one to three had better diagnostic accuracy. Data were insufficient for subgroup analysis of whether the NTproBNP testing was indicated for medical or surgical management of PDA. We performed meta-regression for BNP and NT-proBNP using the covariates: assay type, threshold, mean gestational age and chronological age; none of the covariates significantly affected summary sensitivity and specificity., Authors' Conclusions: Low-certainty evidence suggests that BNP and NT-proBNP have moderate accuracy in diagnosing hsPDA and may work best as a triage test to select infants for echocardiography. The studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of BNP and NT-proBNP for hsPDA varied considerably by assay characteristics (assay kit and threshold) and infant characteristics (gestational and chronological age); hence, generalisability between centres is not possible. We recommend that BNP or NT-proBNP assays be locally validated for specific populations and outcomes, to initiate therapy or follow response to therapy., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

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

Background: Cellular tests for Lyme borreliosis might be able to overcome major shortcomings of serological testing, such as its low sensitivity in early stages of infection. Therefore, we aimed to assess the sensitivity and specificity of three cellular tests., Methods: This was a nationwide, prospective, multiple-gate case-control study done in the Netherlands. Patients with physician-confirmed Lyme borreliosis, either early localised or disseminated, were consecutively included as cases at the start of antibiotic treatment. Controls were those without Lyme borreliosis from the general population (healthy controls) and those with potentially cross-reactive conditions (eg, autoimmune disease). We used three cellular tests for Lyme borreliosis (Spirofind Revised, iSpot Lyme, and LTT-MELISA) as index tests, and standard two-tier serological testing (STTT) as a comparator. Clinical data from Lyme borreliosis patients were collected at baseline and at 12 weeks after inclusion, and blood samples were obtained at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Control participants underwent clinical and laboratory assessments at baseline only., Findings: Cases comprised 271 patients with Lyme borreliosis (of whom 245 had early-localised Lyme borreliosis and 26 had disseminated disease) and controls comprised 228 participants without Lyme borreliosis from the general population and 41 participants with potentially cross-reactive conditions. Recruitment occurred between May 14, 2018, and March 16, 2020. The specificity of STTT in healthy controls (216 of 228 samples [94·7%, 95% CI 91·5-97·7]) was higher than that of the cellular tests: Spirofind (140 of 171 [81·9%, 76·1-87·2]), iSpot Lyme (32 of 103 [31·1%, 21·5-40·3]) and LTT-MELISA (100 of 190 [52·6%, 44·9-60·3]). Cellular tests had varying sensitivities: Spirofind (88 of 204 [43·1%, 36·4-50·4]), iSpot Lyme (51 of 94 [54·3%, 44·5-63·7]), and LTT-MELISA (66 of 218 [30·3%, 23·8-36·7]). The Spirofind and iSpot Lyme outperformed STTT for sensitivity, but were similar to the C6-ELISA (C6-ELISA: 135 of 270 [50·0%, 44·5-55·5]; STTT: 76 of 270 [28·1%, 23·0-33·6])., Interpretation: The cellular tests for Lyme borreliosis used in this study have a low specificity compared with serological tests, which leads to a high number of false-positive test results. We conclude that these cellular tests are unfit for clinical use at this stage., Funding: Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, AMC Foundation (Amsterdam UMC), and Ministry of Health of the Netherlands., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The assays under study were supplied by AID/GenID (Strassberg, Germany), InVitaLab (Neuss, Germany), QIAGEN (Germantown, MD, USA), and Oxford Immunotec (Oxford, UK), either free of charge or at a reduced price; none of the authors have received any direct financial compensation from any of these companies for this project or any other project. MEB and JWH collaborate with Bio-Rad Laboratories, ZEUS Scientific, and Pfizer on unrelated projects on Lyme borreliosis. JWH collaborates with Antigen Discovery on unrelated projects on Lyme borreliosis; JWH has an application for a provisional patent related to Borrelia antigens pending. FRvdS and LABJ collaborate with Hycult Biotech on developing novel diagnostic tests for Lyme borreliosis. B-JK and LABJ are coinventors of the Spirofind, an experimental in-house assay for Lyme borreliosis, which is owned by Radboudumc and was licensed for development to Boulder Diagnostics (Boulder, Colorado, USA) and subsequently Oxford Immunotec (Oxford, UK) until 2018. The other authors report no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Good patient adherence to antiretroviral (ART) medication determines effective HIV viral suppression, and thus reduces the risk of progression and transmission of HIV. With accurate methods to monitor treatment adherence, we could use simple triage to target adherence support interventions that could help in the community or at health centres in resource-limited settings., Objectives: To determine the accuracy of simple measures of ART adherence (including patient self-report, tablet counts, pharmacy records, electronic monitoring, or composite methods) for detecting non-suppressed viral load in people living with HIV and receiving ART treatment., Search Methods: The Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Information Specialists searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, African-Wide information, and Web of Science up to 22 April 2021. They also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing studies. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases., Selection Criteria: We included studies of all designs that evaluated a simple measure of adherence (index test) such as self-report, tablet counts, pharmacy records or secondary database analysis, or both, electronic monitoring or composite measures of any of those tests, in people living with HIV and receiving ART treatment. We used a viral load assay with a limit of detection ranging from 10 copies/mL to 400 copies/mL as the reference standard. We created 2 × 2 tables to calculate sensitivity and specificity., Data Collection and Analysis: We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2 independently and in duplicate. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE method. The results of estimated sensitivity and specificity were presented using paired forest plots and tabulated summaries. We encountered a high level of variation among studies which precluded a meaningful meta-analysis or comparison of adherence measures. We explored heterogeneity using pre-defined subgroup analysis., Main Results: We included 51 studies involving children and adults with HIV, mostly living in low- and middle-income settings, conducted between 2003 and 2021. Several studies assessed more than one index test, and the most common measure of adherence to ART was self-report. - Self-report questionnaires (25 studies, 9211 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 10% to 85% and specificity ranged from 10% to 99%. - Self-report using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (11 studies, 4235 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 0% to 58% and specificity ranged from 55% to 100%. - Tablet counts (12 studies, 3466 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 0% to 100% and specificity ranged from 5% to 99%. - Electronic monitoring devices (3 studies, 186 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 60% to 88% and the specificity ranged from 27% to 67%. - Pharmacy records or secondary databases (6 studies, 2254 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 17% to 88% and the specificity ranged from 9% to 95%. - Composite measures (9 studies, 1513 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 10% to 100% and specificity ranged from 49% to 100%. Across all included studies, the ability of adherence measures to detect viral non-suppression showed a large variation in both sensitivity and specificity that could not be explained by subgroup analysis. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence as very low due to risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, and imprecision. The risk of bias and the applicability concerns for patient selection, index test, and reference standard domains were generally low or unclear due to unclear reporting. The main methodological issues identified were related to flow and timing due to high numbers of missing data. For all index tests, we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low due to limitations in the design and conduct of the studies, applicability concerns and inconsistency of results., Authors' Conclusions: We encountered high variability for all index tests, and the overall certainty of evidence in all areas was very low. No measure consistently offered either a sufficiently high sensitivity or specificity to detect viral non-suppression. These concerns limit their value in triaging patients for viral load monitoring or enhanced adherence support interventions., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

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

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

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

Background: Systematic screening in high-burden settings is recommended as a strategy for early detection of pulmonary tuberculosis disease, reducing mortality, morbidity and transmission, and improving equity in access to care. Questioning for symptoms and chest radiography (CXR) have historically been the most widely available tools to screen for tuberculosis disease. Their accuracy is important for the design of tuberculosis screening programmes and determines, in combination with the accuracy of confirmatory diagnostic tests, the yield of a screening programme and the burden on individuals and the health service., Objectives: To assess the sensitivity and specificity of questioning for the presence of one or more tuberculosis symptoms or symptom combinations, CXR, and combinations of these as screening tools for detecting bacteriologically confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis disease in HIV-negative adults and adults with unknown HIV status who are considered eligible for systematic screening for tuberculosis disease. Second, to investigate sources of heterogeneity, especially in relation to regional, epidemiological, and demographic characteristics of the study populations., Search Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and HTA (Health Technology Assessment) databases using pre-specified search terms and consulted experts for unpublished reports, for the period 1992 to 2018. The search date was 10 December 2018. This search was repeated on 2 July 2021., Selection Criteria: Studies were eligible if participants were screened for tuberculosis disease using symptom questions, or abnormalities on CXR, or both, and were offered confirmatory testing with a reference standard. We included studies if diagnostic two-by-two tables could be generated for one or more index tests, even if not all participants were subjected to a microbacteriological reference standard. We excluded studies evaluating self-reporting of symptoms., Data Collection and Analysis: We categorized symptom and CXR index tests according to commonly used definitions. We assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the QUADAS-2 instrument. We examined the forest plots and receiver operating characteristic plots visually for heterogeneity. We estimated summary sensitivities and specificities (and 95% confidence intervals (CI)) for each index test using bivariate random-effects methods. We analyzed potential sources of heterogeneity in a hierarchical mixed-model., Main Results: The electronic database search identified 9473 titles and abstracts. Through expert consultation, we identified 31 reports on national tuberculosis prevalence surveys as eligible (of which eight were already captured in the search of the electronic databases), and we identified 957 potentially relevant articles through reference checking. After removal of duplicates, we assessed 10,415 titles and abstracts, of which we identified 430 (4%) for full text review, whereafter we excluded 364 articles. In total, 66 articles provided data on 59 studies. We assessed the 2 July 2021 search results; seven studies were potentially eligible but would make no material difference to the review findings or grading of the evidence, and were not added in this edition of the review. We judged most studies at high risk of bias in one or more domains, most commonly because of incorporation bias and verification bias. We judged applicability concerns low in more than 80% of studies in all three domains. The three most common symptom index tests, cough for two or more weeks (41 studies), any cough (21 studies), and any tuberculosis symptom (29 studies), showed a summary sensitivity of 42.1% (95% CI 36.6% to 47.7%), 51.3% (95% CI 42.8% to 59.7%), and 70.6% (95% CI 61.7% to 78.2%, all very low-certainty evidence), and a specificity of 94.4% (95% CI 92.6% to 95.8%, high-certainty evidence), 87.6% (95% CI 81.6% to 91.8%, low-certainty evidence), and 65.1% (95% CI 53.3% to 75.4%, low-certainty evidence), respectively. The data on symptom index tests were more heterogenous than those for CXR. The studies on any tuberculosis symptom were the most heterogeneous, but had the lowest number of variables explaining this variation. Symptom index tests also showed regional variation. The summary sensitivity of any CXR abnormality (23 studies) was 94.7% (95% CI 92.2% to 96.4%, very low-certainty evidence) and 84.8% (95% CI 76.7% to 90.4%, low-certainty evidence) for CXR abnormalities suggestive of tuberculosis (19 studies), and specificity was 89.1% (95% CI 85.6% to 91.8%, low-certainty evidence) and 95.6% (95% CI 92.6% to 97.4%, high-certainty evidence), respectively. Sensitivity was more heterogenous than specificity, and could be explained by regional variation. The addition of cough for two or more weeks, whether to any (pulmonary) CXR abnormality or to CXR abnormalities suggestive of tuberculosis, resulted in a summary sensitivity and specificity of 99.2% (95% CI 96.8% to 99.8%) and 84.9% (95% CI 81.2% to 88.1%) (15 studies; certainty of evidence not assessed)., Authors' Conclusions: The summary estimates of the symptom and CXR index tests may inform the choice of screening and diagnostic algorithms in any given setting or country where screening for tuberculosis is being implemented. The high sensitivity of CXR index tests, with or without symptom questions in parallel, suggests a high yield of persons with tuberculosis disease. However, additional considerations will determine the design of screening and diagnostic algorithms, such as the availability and accessibility of CXR facilities or the resources to fund them, and the need for more or fewer diagnostic tests to confirm the diagnosis (depending on screening test specificity), which also has resource implications. These review findings should be interpreted with caution due to methodological limitations in the included studies and regional variation in sensitivity and specificity. The sensitivity and specificity of an index test in a specific setting cannot be predicted with great precision due to heterogeneity. This should be borne in mind when planning for and implementing tuberculosis screening programmes., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Competing Interests: None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

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

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

Background: Management and control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) relies on reliable diagnostic testing., Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for the diagnosis of coronavirus infections., Data Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Open Grey and conference proceeding until May 2019. PubMed and medRxiv were updated for COVID-19 on 31st August 2020., Study Eligibility: Studies were eligible if they reported on agreement rates between different NAATs using clinical samples., Participants: Symptomatic patients with suspected upper or lower respiratory tract coronavirus infection., Methods: The new NAAT was defined as the index test and the existing NAAT as reference standard. Data were extracted independently in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Confidence regions (CRs) surrounding summary sensitivity/specificity pooled by bivariate meta-analysis are reported. Heterogeneity was assessed using meta-regression., Results: Fifty-one studies were included, 22 of which included 10 181 persons before COVID-19 and 29 including 8742 persons diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The overall summary sensitivity was 89.1% (95%CR 84.0-92.7%) and specificity 98.9% (95%CR 98.0-99.4%). Nearly all the studies evaluated different PCRs as both index and reference standards. Real-time RT PCR assays resulted in significantly higher sensitivity than other tests. Reference standards at high risk of bias possibly exaggerated specificity. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of studies evaluating SARS-COV-2 were 90.4% (95%CR 83.7-94.5%) and 98.1% (95%CR 95.9-99.2), respectively. SARS-COV-2 studies using samples from the lower respiratory tract, real-time RT-PCR, and tests targeting the N or S gene or more than one gene showed higher sensitivity, and assays based on reverse transcriptase loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), especially when targeting only the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) gene, showed significantly lower sensitivity compared to other studies., Conclusions: Pooling all studies to date shows that on average 10% of patients with coronavirus infections might be missed with PCR tests. Variables affecting sensitivity and specificity can be used for test selection and development., (Copyright © 2020 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

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

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

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

Background: 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. This is an update of a review first published in 2015., Objectives: The objectives of this review were to 1) determine whether procalcitonin (PCT), 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 through to 17th December 2019 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 (PCT, CRP, ESR) against the results of an acute-phase 99 Tc-dimercaptosuccinic acid (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 cut-off values were used for the primary analysis: 0.5 ng/mL for procalcitonin, 20 mg/L for CRP and 30 mm/hour 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 36 studies met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-five studies provided data for the primary analysis: 12 studies (1000 children) included data on PCT, 16 studies (1895 children) included data on CRP, and eight studies (1910 children) included data on ESR (some studies had data on more than one test). The summary sensitivity estimates (95% CI) for the PCT, CRP, ESR tests at the aforementioned cut-offs were 0.81 (0.67 to 0.90), 0.93 (0.86 to 0.96), and 0.83 (0.71 to 0.91), respectively. The summary specificity values for PCT, CRP, and ESR tests at these cut-offs were 0.76 (0.66 to 0.84), 0.37 (0.24 to 0.53), and 0.57 (0.41 to 0.72), 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., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

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

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

Around 1 % of pregnancies develop Hyperemesis Gravidarum (HG), causing high physical and psychological morbidity. Reports on HG recurrence rate in subsequent pregnancies vary widely. An accurate rate of recurrence is needed for informed reproductive decision making. Our objective is to systematically review and aggregate reported rates for HG subsequent to index pregnancies affected by HG. We searched databases from inception as per the protocol registered on PROSPERO. No language restrictions were applied. Inclusion was not restricted based on how HG was defined; reports of severe NVP were included where authors defined the condition as HG. We included descriptive epidemiological, case control and cohort study designs. Eligibility screening was performed in duplo. We extracted data on populations, study methods and outcomes of significance. A panel of patients reviewed the results and provided discussion and feedback. Quality was assessed with the JBI (2017) critical appraisal tool independently by two reviewers. We performed the searches on 1st November 2019. Our search yielded 4454 unique studies, of which five (n = 40,350 HG cases) matched eligibility criteria; One longitudinal and four population-based cohort studies from five countries. Follow-up ranged from 2 to 31 years. Definition of HG and data collection methods in all the studies created heterogeneity. Quality was low; studies lacked valid and reliable exposure, and/or follow-up was insufficient. Meta-analysis was not possible due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity. This systematic review found five heterogeneous studies reporting recurrence rates from 15 to 81%. Defining HG as hospital cases may have introduced detection bias and contribute to clinical heterogeneity. A prospective longitudinal cohort study using an internationally agreed definition of HG and outcomes meaningful to patients is required to establish the true recurrence rate of HG., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest to declare., (© 2019 The Author(s).)

Objective: Low disease prevalence poses challenges for diagnostic accuracy studies because of the large sample sizes that are required to obtain sufficient precision. The aim is to collate and discuss designs of diagnostic accuracy studies suited for use in low-prevalence situations., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a literature search including backward citation tracking and expert consultation. Two reviewers independently selected studies on designs for estimating diagnostic accuracy in a low-prevalence situation. During a 1-day expert meeting, all designs were discussed and recommendations were formulated., Results: We identified six designs for diagnostic accuracy studies that are suitable in low-prevalence situations because they reduced the total sample size or the number of patients undergoing the index test or reference standard depending on which poses the highest burden. We described the advantages and limitations of these designs and evaluated efficiencies in sample sizes, risk of bias, and alignment with the clinical pathway for applicability in routine care., Conclusion: Choosing a study design for diagnostic accuracy studies in low-prevalence situations should depend on whether the aim is to limit the number of patients undergoing the index test or reference standard, and the risk of bias associated with a particular design type., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Early diagnosis of leptospirosis may contribute to the effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy and early outbreak recognition. Nucleic acid and antigen detection tests have the potential for early diagnosis of leptospirosis. With this systematic review, we assessed the sensitivity and specificity of nucleic acid and antigen detection tests., Objectives: To determine the diagnostic test accuracy of nucleic acid and antigen detection tests for the diagnosis of human symptomatic leptospirosis., Search Methods: We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and regional databases from inception to 6 July 2018. We did not apply restrictions to language or time of publication., Selection Criteria: We included diagnostic cross-sectional studies and case-control studies of tests that made use of nucleic acid and antigen detection methods in people suspected of systemic leptospirosis. As reference standards, we considered the microscopic agglutination test alone (which detects antibodies against leptospirosis) or in a composite reference standard with culturing or other serological tests. Studies were excluded when the controls were healthy individuals or when there were insufficient data to calculate sensitivity and specificity., Data Collection and Analysis: At least two review authors independently extracted data from each study. We used the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) to assess risk of bias. We calculated study-specific values for sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled the results in a meta-analysis when appropriate. We used the bivariate model for index tests with one positivity threshold, and we used the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model for index tests with multiple positivity thresholds. As possible sources of heterogeneity, we explored: timing of index test, disease prevalence, blood sample type, primers or target genes, and the real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) visualisation method. These were added as covariates to the meta-regression models., Main Results: We included 41 studies evaluating nine index tests (conventional PCR (in short: PCR), real-time PCR, nested PCR, PCR performed twice, loop-mediated isothermal amplification, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), dot-ELISA, immunochromatography-based lateral flow assay, and dipstick assay) with 5981 participants (1834 with and 4147 without leptospirosis). Methodological quality criteria were often not reported, and the risk of bias of the reference standard was generally considered high. The applicability of findings was limited by the frequent use of frozen samples. We conducted meta-analyses for the PCR and the real-time PCR on blood products.The pooled sensitivity of the PCR was 70% (95% CI 37% to 90%) and the pooled specificity was 95% (95% CI 75% to 99%). When studies with a high risk of bias in the reference standard domain were excluded, the pooled sensitivity was 87% (95% CI 44% to 98%) and the pooled specificity was 97% (95% CI 60% to 100%). For the real-time PCR, we estimated a summary receiver operating characteristic curve. To illustrate, a point on the curve with 85% specificity had a sensitivity of 49% (95% CI 30% to 68%). Likewise, at 90% specificity, sensitivity was 40% (95% CI 24% to 59%) and at 95% specificity, sensitivity was 29% (95% CI 15% to 49%). The median specificity of real-time PCR on blood products was 92%. We did not formally compare the diagnostic test accuracy of PCR and real-time PCR, as direct comparison studies were lacking. Three of 15 studies analysing PCR on blood products reported the timing of sample collection in the studies included in the meta-analyses (range 1 to 7 days postonset of symptoms), and nine out of 16 studies analysing real-time PCR on blood products (range 1 to 19 days postonset of symptoms). In PCR studies, specificity was lower in settings with high leptospirosis prevalence. Other investigations of heterogeneity did not identify statistically significant associations. Two studies suggested that PCR and real-time PCR may be more sensitive on blood samples collected early in the disease stage. Results of other index tests were described narratively., Authors' Conclusions: The validity of review findings are limited and should be interpreted with caution. There is a substantial between-study variability in the accuracy of PCR and real-time PCR, as well as a substantial variability in the prevalence of leptospirosis. Consequently, the position of PCR and real-time PCR in the clinical pathway depends on regional considerations such as disease prevalence, factors that are likely to influence accuracy, and downstream consequences of test results. There is insufficient evidence to conclude which of the nucleic acid and antigen detection tests is the most accurate. There is preliminary evidence that PCR and real-time PCR are more sensitive on blood samples collected early in the disease stage, but this needs to be confirmed in future studies.

Background: Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is a life-threatening opportunistic mycosis that occurs in some people with a compromised immune system. The serum galactomannan enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) rapidly gained widespread acceptance as part of the diagnostic work-up of a patient suspected of IA. Due to its non-invasive nature, it can be used as a routine screening test. The ELISA can also be performed on bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), allowing sampling of the immediate vicinity of the infection. The invasive nature of acquiring BAL, however, changes the role of the galactomannan test significantly, for example by precluding its use as a routine screening test., Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of galactomannan detection in BAL for the diagnosis of IA in people who are immunocompromised, at different cut-off values for test positivity, in accordance with the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Handbook., Search Methods: We searched three bibliographic databases including MEDLINE on 9 September 2016 for aspergillosis and galactomannan as text words and subject headings where appropriate. We checked reference lists of included studies for additional studies., Selection Criteria: We included cohort studies that examined the accuracy of BAL galactomannan for the diagnosis of IA in immunocompromised patients if they used the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) classification as reference standard., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors assessed study quality and extracted data. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was used for quality assessment., Main Results: We included 17 studies in our review. All studies except one had a high risk of bias in two or more domains. The diagnostic performance of an optical density index (ODI) of 0.5 as cut-off value was reported in 12 studies (with 1123 patients). The estimated sensitivity was 0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.00) and specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.91). The performance of an ODI of 1.0 as cut-off value could be determined in 11 studies (with 648 patients). The sensitivity was 0.78 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.95) and specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.98). At a cut-off ODI of 1.5 or higher, the heterogeneity in specificity decreased significantly and was invariably >90%., Authors' Conclusions: The optimal cut-off value depends on the local incidence and clinical pathway. At a prevalence of 12% a hypothetical population of 1000 patients will consist of 120 patients with IA. At a cut-off value of 0.5 14 patients with IA will be missed and there will be 167 patients incorrectly diagnosed with IA. If we use the test at a cut-off value of 1.0, we will miss 26 patients with IA. And there will be 62 patients incorrectly diagnosed with invasive aspergillosis. The populations and results were very heterogeneous. Therefore, interpretation and extrapolation of these results has to be performed with caution. A test result of 1.5 ODI or higher appears a strong indicator of IA.

Background: This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2014, Issue 2.The presence of residual disease after primary debulking surgery is a highly significant prognostic factor in women with advanced ovarian cancer. In up to 60% of women, residual tumour of > 1 cm is left behind after primary debulking surgery (defined as suboptimal debulking). These women might have benefited from neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) prior to interval debulking surgery instead of primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy. It is therefore important to select accurately those women who would best be treated with primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy from those who would benefit from NACT prior to surgery., Objectives: To determine if performing a laparoscopy, in addition to conventional diagnostic work-up, in women suspected of advanced ovarian cancer is accurate in predicting the resectability of disease., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, MEDION and Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) to July 2018. We also 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 women who are suspected of advanced ovarian cancer and planned to receive primary debulking surgery., Data Collection and Analysis: Pairs of review authors independently assessed the quality of included studies using QUADAS-2 and extracted data on study and participant characteristics, index test, target condition and reference standard. We extracted data for two-by-two tables and summarised these graphically. We calculated sensitivity and specificity and negative predictive values., Main Results: We included 18 studies, reporting on 14 cohorts of women (including 1563 participants), of which one was a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Laparoscopic assessment suggested that disease was suitable for optimal debulking surgery (no macroscopic residual disease or residual disease < 1 cm (negative predictive values)) in 54% to 96% of women who had macroscopic complete debulking surgery (no visible disease at end of laparotomy) and in 69% to 100% of women who had optimal debulking surgery (residual tumour < 1 cm at end of laparotomy).Only two studies avoided partial verification bias by operating on all women independent of laparoscopic findings, and provided data to calculate sensitivity and specificity. These two studies had no false positive laparoscopies (i.e. no women had a laparoscopy indicating unresectable disease and then went on to have optimal debulking surgery (no disease > 1 cm remaining)).Due to the large heterogeneity pooling of the data was not possible for meta-analysis., Authors' Conclusions: Laparoscopy may be a useful tool to identify those women who have unresectable disease, as no women were inappropriately unexplored. However, some women had suboptimal primary debulking surgery, despite laparoscopy predicting optimal debulking and data are at high risk of verification bias as only two studies performed the reference standard (debulking laparotomy) in test (laparoscopy)-positive women. Using a prediction model does not increase the sensitivity and will result in more unnecessarily explored women, due to a lower specificity.

Objective: Most prognostic models for primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) are based on patients referred to tertiary care and may not be applicable for the majority of patients with PSC. The aim of this study was to construct and externally validate a novel, broadly applicable prognostic model for transplant-free survival in PSC, based on a large, predominantly population-based cohort using readily available variables., Design: The derivation cohort consisted of 692 patients with PSC from the Netherlands, the validation cohort of 264 patients with PSC from the UK. Retrospectively, clinical and biochemical variables were collected. We derived the prognostic index from a multivariable Cox regression model in which predictors were selected and parameters were estimated using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator. The composite end point of PSC-related death and liver transplantation was used. To quantify the models' predictive value, we calculated the C-statistic as discrimination index and established its calibration accuracy by comparing predicted curves with Kaplan-Meier estimates., Results: The final model included the variables: PSC subtype, age at PSC diagnosis, albumin, platelets, aspartate aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin. The C-statistic was 0.68 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.85). Calibration was satisfactory. The model was robust in the sense that the C-statistic did not change when prediction was based on biochemical variables collected at follow-up., Conclusion: The Amsterdam-Oxford model for PSC showed adequate performance in estimating PSC-related death and/or liver transplant in a predominantly population-based setting. The transplant-free survival probability can be recalculated when updated biochemical values are available., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Laboratory animal studies are used in a wide range of human health related research areas, such as basic biomedical research, drug research, experimental surgery and environmental health. The results of these studies can be used to inform decisions regarding clinical research in humans, for example the decision to proceed to clinical trials. If the research question relates to potential harms with no expectation of benefit (e.g., toxicology), studies in experimental animals may provide the only relevant or controlled data and directly inform clinical management decisions. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are important tools to provide robust and informative evidence summaries of these animal studies. Rating how certain we are about the evidence could provide important information about the translational probability of findings in experimental animal studies to clinical practice and probably improve it. Evidence summaries and certainty in the evidence ratings could also be used (1) to support selection of interventions with best therapeutic potential to be tested in clinical trials, (2) to justify a regulatory decision limiting human exposure (to drug or toxin), or to (3) support decisions on the utility of further animal experiments. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is the most widely used framework to rate the certainty in the evidence and strength of health care recommendations. Here we present how the GRADE approach could be used to rate the certainty in the evidence of preclinical animal studies in the context of therapeutic interventions. We also discuss the methodological challenges that we identified, and for which further work is needed. Examples are defining the importance of consistency within and across animal species and using GRADE's indirectness domain as a tool to predict translation from animal models to humans.

Background: In vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is a promising non-invasive skin imaging technique that could facilitate early diagnosis of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) instead of routine punch biopsies. However, the clinical value and utility of RCM vs. a punch biopsy in diagnosing and subtyping BCC is unknown., Objective: To assess diagnostic accuracy of RCM vs. punch biopsy for diagnosing and subtyping clinically suspected primary BCC., Methods: A prospective, consecutive cohort of 100 patients with clinically suspected BCC were included at two tertiary hospitals in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, between 3 February 2015 and 2 October 2015. Patients were randomized between two test-treatment pathways: diagnosing and subtyping using RCM imaging followed by direct surgical excision (RCM one-stop-shop) or planned excision based upon the histological diagnosis and subtype of punch biopsy (standard care). The primary outcome was the agreement between the index tests (RCM vs. punch biopsy) and reference standard (excision specimen) in correctly diagnosing BCC. The secondary outcome was the agreement between the index tests and reference standard in correctly identifying the most aggressive BCC subtypes., Results: Sensitivity to detect BCC was similar for RCM and punch biopsy (100% vs. 93.94%), but a punch biopsy was more specific than RCM (79% vs. 38%). RCM expert evaluation for diagnosing BCC had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 75%. The agreement between RCM and excision specimen in identifying the most aggressive BCC subtype ranged from 50% to 85% vs. 77% by a punch biopsy., Conclusion: Reflectance confocal microscopy and punch biopsy have comparable diagnostic accuracy to diagnose and subtype BCC depending on RCM experience. Although experienced RCM users could accurately diagnose BCC at a distance, we found an important difference in subtyping BCC. Future RCM studies need to focus on diagnostic accuracy, reliability and specific criteria to improve BCC subtype differentiation., (© 2017 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: Focal abnormalities most commonly acquired within the uterine cavity include endometrial polyps (arising from the endometrium) and submucous fibroids (arising from the myometrium). These benign abnormalities can cause several problems, including abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) and subfertility. Two-dimensional saline infusion sonography (2D SIS) is a minimally invasive test that can be used to diagnose these pathologies, but it is less accurate than hysteroscopy, which is a more invasive procedure by which an endoscope allows direct visualisation of the uterine cavity. Three-dimensional (3D) SIS appears to enhance sonographic visualisation within the uterine cavity, thereby offering a potentially more accurate minimally invasive diagnostic test., Objectives: Primary objectives • To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 3D SIS (index test 1) compared with 2D SIS for the diagnosis of focally growing lesions (presence or not) in women with AUB or subfertility, with hysteroscopy performed as the reference test. • To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 2D+3D SIS (index test 2) compared with 2D SIS for the diagnosis of focally growing lesions (presence or not) in women with AUB or subfertility, with hysteroscopy performed as the reference test. In this case, any abnormality on either modality was regarded as a positive result ('OR' approach). Secondary objectives • To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 3D SIS (index test 1) compared with 2D SIS according to type of abnormality and discrimination between uterine polyps and submucous fibroids in women with AUB or subfertility, with hysteroscopy and histology used as the reference.• To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 2D+3D SIS (index test 2) compared with 2D SIS according to type of abnormality and discrimination between uterine polyps and submucous fibroids in women with AUB or subfertility, with hysteroscopy and histology used as the reference., Search Methods: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register and CGFG Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Screening reference lists of appropriate studies was also performed. We screened for eligibility all studies identified from inception until March 2016. We performed searches with no date or language restrictions., Selection Criteria: The population of interest consisted of premenopausal women with AUB or subfertility and postmenopausal women with AUB. Diagnostic test accuracy studies, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the accuracy of both 2D SIS and 3D SIS for the diagnosis of acquired intracavitary abnormalities with hysteroscopy used as the reference standard. In light of the lack of data for 3D SIS, we also included studies that evaluated the accuracy of 3D SIS alone., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors read all potentially eligible references after performing a first screening by title and abstract (LLN and FJRH). They independently extracted data to construct 2×2 tables from eligible studies and assessed studies for methodological quality using the QUADAS-2 tool (revised tool for quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies). To describe and visually present results, we produced in RevMan forest plots showing pairs of sensitivity and specificity together with 95% confidence intervals from each study, as well as raw receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots. We displayed paired analyses in an ROC plot by linking sensitivity-specificity pairs from each study by using a dashed line. To compare 3D SIS versus 2D SIS, we restricted analyses to studies that provided 2×2 tables for both tests and used the bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity., Main Results: Thirteen studies (1053 women) reported the accuracy of 3D SIS for focal uterine abnormalities; 11 of these (846 women) were suitable for meta-analysis, and eight reported accuracy according to the type of focal abnormality. The design of the included studies seems applicable. The main problem involving the quality of included studies is insufficient reporting of study methods, resulting in unclear risk of bias for several of the quality domains assessed. Therefore, we considered the overall quality of the evidence as low. The summary estimate (11 studies reporting absence or presence of abnormality at 3D SIS) for sensitivity was 94.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 90.6% to 96.9%) and for specificity 99.4% (95% CI 96.2% to 99.9%). Meta-analysis of the eight studies (N = 716) directly comparing 2D SIS versus 3D SIS showed summary sensitivity of 96.9% (95% CI 91.9% to 98.8%) and summary specificity of 99.5% (95% CI 96.1% to 100%) for 3D SIS. For 2D SIS, summary sensitivity was 90.9% (95% CI 81.2% to 95.8%) and summary specificity was 96.3% (95% CI 86.1% to 99.1%). The difference in accuracy between 2D SIS and 3D SIS was non-significant (P values of 0.07 for sensitivity and 0.10 for specificity)., Authors' Conclusions: Low-quality evidence suggests that 3D SIS may be very accurate in detecting intracavitary abnormalities. Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between 2D SIS and 3D SIS. Summary sensitivity and summary specificity are higher for 3D SIS, but margins of improvement are limited because 2D SIS is already very accurate. When the technology and appropriate expertise are available, 3D SIS offers an alternative to 2D SIS. Both 2D SIS and 3D SIS should be considered alternatives to diagnostic hysteroscopy when intracavitary pathology is suspected in subfertile women and in those with abnormal uterine bleeding.

Background: Microbial cultures for diagnosis of neonatal sepsis have low sensitivity and reporting delay. Advances in molecular microbiology have fostered new molecular assays that are rapid and may improve neonatal outcomes., Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of various molecular methods for the diagnosis of culture-positive bacterial and fungal sepsis in neonates and to explore heterogeneity among studies by analyzing subgroups classified by gestational age and type of sepsis onset and compare molecular tests with one another., Search Methods: We performed the systematic review as recommended by the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. On 19 January 2016, we searched electronic bibliographic databases (the Cochrane Library, PubMed (from 1966), Embase (from 1982), and CINAHL (from 1982)), conference proceedings of the Pediatric Academic Societies annual conference (from 1990), clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry, and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Platform (ICTRP) Search portal), and Science Citation Index. We contacted experts in the field for studies., Selection Criteria: We included studies that were prospective or retrospective, cohort or cross-sectional design, which evaluated molecular assays (index test) in neonates with suspected sepsis (participants) in comparison with microbial cultures (reference standard)., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed the methodologic quality of the studies and extracted data. We performed meta-analyses using the bivariate and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models and entered data into Review Manager 5., Main Results: Thirty-five studies were eligible for inclusion and the summary estimate of sensitivity was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.95) and of specificity was 0.93 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.96) (moderate quality evidence). We explored heterogeneity by subgroup analyses of type of test, gestational age, type of sepsis onset, and prevalence of sepsis and we did not find sufficient explanations for the heterogeneity (moderate to very low quality evidence). Sensitivity analyses by including studies that analyzed blood samples and by good methodology revealed similar results (moderate quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Molecular assays have the advantage of producing rapid results and may perform well as 'add-on' tests.

Background: Pulmonary embolism is a leading cause of pregnancy-related death. An accurate diagnosis in pregnant patients is crucial to prevent untreated pulmonary embolism as well as unnecessary anticoagulant treatment and future preventive measures. Applied imaging techniques might perform differently in these younger patients with less comorbidity and altered physiology, who largely have been excluded from diagnostic studies., Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA), lung scintigraphy and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism during pregnancy., Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase until July 2015. We used included studies as seeds in citations searches and in 'find similar' functions and searched reference lists. We approached experts in the field to help us identify non-indexed studies., Selection Criteria: We included consecutive series of pregnant patients suspected of pulmonary embolism who had undergone one of the index tests (computed tomography (CT) pulmonary angiography, lung scintigraphy or MRA) and clinical follow-up or pulmonary angiography as a reference test., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors performed data extraction and quality assessment. We contacted investigators of potentially eligible studies to obtain missing information. In the primary analysis, we regarded inconclusive index test results as a negative reference test, and treatment for pulmonary embolism after an inconclusive index test as a positive reference test., Main Results: We included 11 studies (four CTPA, five lung scintigraphy, two both) with a total of 695 CTPA and 665 lung scintigraphy results. Lung scintigraphy was applied by different techniques. No MRA studies matched our inclusion criteria.Overall, risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability were high in all studies as judged in light of the review research question, as was heterogeneity in study methods. We did not undertake meta-analysis. All studies used clinical follow-up as a reference standard, none in a manner that enabled reliable identification of false positives. Sensitivity and negative predictive value were therefore the only valid test accuracy measures.The median negative predictive value for CTPA was 100% (range 96% to 100%). Median sensitivity was 83% (range 0% to 100%).The median negative predictive value for lung scintigraphy was 100% (range 99% to 100%). Median sensitivity was 100% (range 0% to 100%).The median frequency of inconclusive results was 5.9% (range 0.9% to 36%) for CTPA and 4.0% (range 0% to 23%) for lung scintigraphy. The overall median prevalence of pulmonary embolism was 3.3% (range 0.0% to 8.7%)., Authors' Conclusions: Both CTPA and lung scintigraphy seem appropriate for exclusion of pulmonary embolism during pregnancy. However, the quality of the evidence mandates cautious adoption of this conclusion. Important limitations included poor reference standards, necessary assumptions in the analysis regarding inconclusive test results and the inherent inability of included studies to identify false positives. It is unclear which test has the highest accuracy. There is a need for direct comparisons between diagnostic methods, including MR, in prospective randomized diagnostic studies.

Background: Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a slowly progressive liver disease. Reliable biomarkers to predict outcome are urgently needed to serve as surrogate endpoints and/or stratifiers in clinical trials. Reduction in serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) has been proposed as prognostic surrogate marker in PSC. The aim of this study was to asses if ALP at diagnosis (T0), 1 year later (T1), and percentage change between both time points hold prognostic value, and to determine the optimal threshold., Methods: We retrospectively collected ALP levels at T0 and T1 for patients included in a large PSC cohort. The association of ALP at T0, T1, and percentage change with the combined endpoint (PSC-related death, liver transplantation) was analysed. Predictive value was determined using C-statistics., Results: A total of 366 patients were included, of whom 66 (18%) reached an endpoint: 26 (7%) PSC-related death, 40 (11%) liver transplantation. At T0 and T1, 84% used ursodeoxycholic acid. A positive association was observed between level of ALP at T0 and T1 and the hazard of reaching an endpoint, up to values around 2.5 times upper limit of normal (xULN). A larger decrease in ALP between T0 and T1 decreased the event rate. A range of thresholds (0.5-3×ULN) with about similar C-statistics was found. In this cohort, the optimal threshold was 1.3×ULN at T1., Conclusion: ALP can be used to discriminate between PSC patients with a good and a poor prognosis. These findings indicate that ALP can serve as stratifier, and potentially as surrogate endpoint for clinical trials in PSC., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The value of a medical test depends on the context in which it might be used. Ideally, questions, results and conclusions of a diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic review should be presented in light of this context. There is increasing acceptance of the value for knowing the impact a test can have on downstream consequences such as costs, implications for further testing and treatment options however there is currently no explicit guidance on how to address this. Authors of a Cochrane diagnostic review have recently been asked to include the clinical pathway in which a test maybe used. We aimed to evaluate how authors were developing their clinical pathways in the light of this., Methods: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for all published DTA reviews. We included only those reviews that included a clinical pathway. We developed a checklist, based on the guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for DTA review authors. To this, we added a number of additional descriptors. We checked if the included pathways fulfilled these descriptors as defined by our checklist., Results: We found 47 reviews, of which 33 (73 %) contained aspects pertaining to a clinical pathway. The 33 reviews addressed the clinical pathway differently, both in content and format. Of these, 21 provided a textual description and 12 include visual and textual descriptions. There was considerable variation in how comprehensively review authors adhered to our checklist. Eighteen reviews (51 %) linked the index test results to downstream clinical management actions and patient consequences, but only eight went on to differentially report on the consequences for false negative results and nine on the consequences for false positive results., Conclusion: There is substantial variation in the clinical pathway descriptions in Cochrane systematic reviews of test accuracy. Most reviews do not link misclassifications (i.e. false negatives and false positive) to downstream patient consequences. Review authors could benefit from more explicit guidance on how to create such pathways, which in turn can help guide them in their evidence selection and appraisal of the evidence in the context of downstream consequences of testing.

Objectives: Development of medical test guidelines differs from intervention guideline development. These differences can pose unique challenges in building evidence-based recommendations to guide clinical practice. The aim of our study was to better understand these challenges, explore reasons behind them and identify possible solutions., Setting and Participants: In this qualitative study, we conducted in-depth interviews between February 2012 and April 2013 of a convenience sample of 17 European guideline developers experienced in medical test guideline development., Outcomes Measured: We used framework analysis with deductive and inductive approaches to generate the themes from the interviews. We kept interpretation grounded in the data., Results: Guideline developers acknowledged that inclusion of patient important outcomes in their guideline development was necessary but lacking. This and other challenges raised fell into 3 broad and overlapping domains: methodological issues, resource limitations and a lack of awareness on the need for evidence that links testing to patient outcomes. Education was mentioned as a key solution to increase awareness and address the resources limitations mentioned., Conclusions: Challenges guideline developers face were interlinked across the domains of methodological issues, resource limitations and a lack of awareness. Solutions that addressed these challenges in parallel are needed. Raising awareness, education and training of relevant stakeholders such as medical doctors, funders and regulators to look beyond test accuracy is key to having a long-term resolution to the issues faced in medical test guideline development., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objectives: To evaluate changes over time in summary estimates from meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies., Study Design and Setting: We included 48 meta-analyses from 35 MEDLINE-indexed systematic reviews published between September 2011 and January 2012 (743 diagnostic accuracy studies; 344,015 participants). Within each meta-analysis, we ranked studies by publication date. We applied random-effects cumulative meta-analysis to follow how summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity evolved over time. Time trends were assessed by fitting a weighted linear regression model of the summary accuracy estimate against rank of publication., Results: The median of the 48 slopes was -0.02 (-0.08 to 0.03) for sensitivity and -0.01 (-0.03 to 0.03) for specificity. Twelve of 96 (12.5%) time trends in sensitivity or specificity were statistically significant. We found a significant time trend in at least one accuracy measure for 11 of the 48 (23%) meta-analyses., Conclusion: Time trends in summary estimates are relatively frequent in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies. Results from early meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies should be considered with caution., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To describe the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) interactive evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks for tests and test strategies for clinical, public health, or coverage decisions., Study Design and Setting: As part of the GRADE Working Group's DECIDE project, we conducted workshops, user testing with systematic review authors, guideline developers and other decision makers, and piloted versions of the EtD framework., Results: EtD frameworks for tests share the structure, explicitness, and transparency of other EtD frameworks. They require specifying the purpose of the test, linked or related management, and the key outcomes of concern for different test results and subsequent management. The EtD criteria address test accuracy and assessments of the certainty of the additional evidence necessary for decision making. When there is no direct evidence of test effects on patient-important outcomes, formal or informal modeling is needed to estimate effects. We describe the EtD criteria based on examples developed with GRADEpro (www.gradepro.org), GRADE's software that also allows development and dissemination of interactive summary of findings tables., Conclusion: EtD frameworks for developing recommendations and making decisions about tests lay out the sequential steps in reviewing and assessing the different types of evidence that need to be linked., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Passive leg raising creates a reversible increase in venous return allowing for the prediction of fluid responsiveness. However, the amount of venous return may vary in various clinical settings potentially affecting the diagnostic performance of passive leg raising. Therefore we performed a systematic meta-analysis determining the diagnostic performance of passive leg raising in different clinical settings with exploration of patient characteristics, measurement techniques, and outcome variables., Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and citation tracking of relevant articles., Study Selection: Clinical trials were selected when passive leg raising was performed in combination with a fluid challenge as gold standard to define fluid responders and non-responders., Data Extraction: Trials were included if data were reported allowing the extraction of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve., Data Synthesis: Twenty-three studies with a total of 1,013 patients and 1,034 fluid challenges were included. The analysis demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 86% (95% CI, 79-92), pooled specificity of 92% (95% CI, 88-96), and a summary area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.98). Mode of ventilation, type of fluid used, passive leg raising starting position, and measurement technique did not affect the diagnostic performance of passive leg raising. The use of changes in pulse pressure on passive leg raising showed a lower diagnostic performance when compared with passive leg raising-induced changes in flow variables, such as cardiac output or its direct derivatives (sensitivity of 58% [95% CI, 44-70] and specificity of 83% [95% CI, 68-92] vs sensitivity of 85% [95% CI, 78-90] and specificity of 92% [95% CI, 87-94], respectively; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Passive leg raising retains a high diagnostic performance in various clinical settings and patient groups. The predictive value of a change in pulse pressure on passive leg raising is inferior to a passive leg raising-induced change in a flow variable.

Background: Interpretation of serological assays in Lyme borreliosis requires an understanding of the clinical indications and the limitations of the currently available tests. We therefore systematically reviewed the accuracy of serological tests for the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis in Europe., Methods: We searched EMBASE en MEDLINE and contacted experts. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of serological assays for Lyme borreliosis in Europe were eligible. Study selection and data-extraction were done by two authors independently. We assessed study quality using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We used a hierarchical summary ROC meta-regression method for the meta-analyses. Potential sources of heterogeneity were test-type, commercial or in-house, Ig-type, antigen type and study quality. These were added as covariates to the model, to assess their effect on test accuracy., Results: Seventy-eight studies evaluating an Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent assay (ELISA) or an immunoblot assay against a reference standard of clinical criteria were included. None of the studies had low risk of bias for all QUADAS-2 domains. Sensitivity was highly heterogeneous, with summary estimates: erythema migrans 50% (95% CI 40% to 61%); neuroborreliosis 77% (95% CI 67% to 85%); acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans 97% (95% CI 94% to 99%); unspecified Lyme borreliosis 73% (95% CI 53% to 87%). Specificity was around 95% in studies with healthy controls, but around 80% in cross-sectional studies. Two-tiered algorithms or antibody indices did not outperform single test approaches., Conclusions: The observed heterogeneity and risk of bias complicate the extrapolation of our results to clinical practice. The usefulness of the serological tests for Lyme disease depends on the pre-test probability and subsequent predictive values in the setting where the tests are being used. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should be prospectively planned cross-sectional studies, done in settings where the test will be used in practice.

Accurate diagnosis of malaria is essential for identification and subsequent treatment of the disease. Currently, microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests are the most commonly used diagnostics, next to treatment based on clinical signs only. These tests are easy to deploy, but have a relatively high detection limit. With declining prevalence in many areas, there is an increasing need for more sensitive diagnostics. Molecular tools may be a suitable alternative, although costs and technical requirements currently hamper their implementation in resource limited settings. A range of (near) point-of-care diagnostics is therefore under development, including simplifications in sample preparation, amplification and/or read-out of the test. Accuracy data, in combination with technical characteristics, are essential in determining which molecular test, if any, would be the most promising to be deployed. This review presents a comprehensive overview of the currently available molecular malaria diagnostics, ranging from well-known tests to platforms in early stages of evaluation, and systematically evaluates their published accuracy. No important difference in accuracy was found between the most commonly used PCR-based assays (conventional, nested and real-time PCR), with most of them having high sensitivity and specificity, implying that there are no reasons other than practical ones to choose one technique over the other. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification and other (novel) diagnostics appear to be highly accurate as well, with some offering potential to be used in resource-limited settings.