How well do health professionals interpret diagnostic information? A systematic review.

Published onlineResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tOBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether clinicians differ in how they evaluate and interpret diagnostic test information. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to September 2013; bibliographies of retrieved studies, experts and citation search of key included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Primary studies that provided information on the accuracy of any diagnostic test (eg, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios) to health professionals and that reported outcomes relating to their understanding of information on or implications of test accuracy. RESULTS: We included 24 studies. 6 assessed ability to define accuracy metrics: health professionals were less likely to identify the correct definition of likelihood ratios than of sensitivity and specificity. -25 studies assessed Bayesian reasoning. Most assessed the influence of a positive test result on the probability of disease: they generally found health professionals' estimation of post-test probability to be poor, with a tendency to overestimation. 3 studies found that approaches based on likelihood ratios resulted in more accurate estimates of post-test probability than approaches based on estimates of sensitivity and specificity alone, while 3 found less accurate estimates. 5 studies found that presenting natural frequencies rather than probabilities improved post-test probability estimation and speed of calculations. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly used measures of test accuracy are poorly understood by health professionals. Reporting test accuracy using natural frequencies and visual aids may facilitate improved understanding and better estimation of the post-test probability of disease.This work was partially funded by the UK Medical Research Council (Grant Code G0801405)

Accuracy of magnetic resonance studies in the detection of chondral and labral lesions in femoroacetabular impingement : systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Several types of Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are commonly used in imaging of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), however till now there are no clear protocols and recommendations for each type. The aim of this meta-analysis is to detect the accuracy of conventional magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI), direct magnetic resonance arthrography (dMRA) and indirect magnetic resonance arthrography (iMRA) in the diagnosis of chondral and labral lesions in femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Methods: A literature search was finalized on the 17th of May 2016 to collect all studies identifying the accuracy of cMRI, dMRA and iMRA in diagnosing chondral and labral lesions associated with FAI using surgical results (arthroscopic or open) as a reference test. Pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals using a random-effects meta-analysis for MRI, dMRA and iMRA were calculated also area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was retrieved whenever possible where AUC is equivocal to diagnostic accuracy. Results: The search yielded 192 publications which were reviewed according inclusion and exclusion criteria then 21 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the qualitative analysis with a total number of 828 cases, lastly 12 studies were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed that as regard labral lesions the pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC for cMRI were 0.864, 0.833 and 0.88 and for dMRA were 0.91, 0.58 and 0.92. While in chondral lesions the pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC for cMRI were 0.76, 0.72 and 0.75 and for dMRA were 0.75, 0.79 and 0.83, while for iMRA were sensitivity of 0.722 and specificity of 0.917. Conclusions: The present meta-analysis showed that the diagnostic test accuracy was superior for dMRA when compared with cMRI for detection of labral and chondral lesions. The diagnostic test accuracy was superior for labral lesions when compared with chondral lesions in both cMRI and dMRA. Promising results are obtained concerning iMRA but further studies still needed to fully assess its diagnostic accuracy

The comparative diagnostic accuracy of the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the General Practitioner assessment of Cognition (GPCOG) for identifying dementia in primary care: a systematic review protocol

Open Acces

Design Characteristics Influence Performance of Clinical Prediction Rules in Validation: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

BACKGROUND: Many new clinical prediction rules are derived and validated. But the design and reporting quality of clinical prediction research has been less than optimal. We aimed to assess whether design characteristics of validation studies were associated with the overestimation of clinical prediction rules' performance. We also aimed to evaluate whether validation studies clearly reported important methodological characteristics. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews of clinical prediction rule studies published between 2006 and 2010. Data were extracted from the eligible validation studies included in the systematic reviews. A meta-analytic meta-epidemiological approach was used to assess the influence of design characteristics on predictive performance. From each validation study, it was assessed whether 7 design and 7 reporting characteristics were properly described. RESULTS: A total of 287 validation studies of clinical prediction rule were collected from 15 systematic reviews (31 meta-analyses). Validation studies using case-control design produced a summary diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) 2.2 times (95% CI: 1.2-4.3) larger than validation studies using cohort design and unclear design. When differential verification was used, the summary DOR was overestimated by twofold (95% CI: 1.2 -3.1) compared to complete, partial and unclear verification. The summary RDOR of validation studies with inadequate sample size was 1.9 (95% CI: 1.2 -3.1) compared to studies with adequate sample size. Study site, reliability, and clinical prediction rule was adequately described in 10.1%, 9.4%, and 7.0% of validation studies respectively. CONCLUSION: Validation studies with design shortcomings may overestimate the performance of clinical prediction rules. The quality of reporting among studies validating clinical prediction rules needs to be improved

A cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating endoscopic surveillance for gastric cancer for populations with low to intermediate risk

10.1371/journal.pone.0083959PLoS ONE812-POLN

The diagnostic accuracy of high b-value diffusion- and T2-weighted imaging for the detection of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis

Purpose: This study aims to investigate the role of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) in combination for the detection of prostate cancer, specifically assessing the role of high b-values (> 1000 s/mm2), with a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing published data.  Methods: The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and OpenSIGLE were searched between inception and September 1, 2017. Eligible studies were those that reported the sensitivity and specificity of DWI and T2WI for the diagnosis of prostate cancer by visual assessment using a histopathologic reference standard. The QUADAS-2 critical appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. A meta-analysis with pooling of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood, and diagnostic odds ratios was undertaken, and a summary receiver-operating characteristics (sROC) curve was constructed. Predetermined subgroup analysis was also performed.  Results: Thirty-three studies were included in the final analysis, evaluating 2949 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.69 (95% CI 0.68–0.69) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.83–0.85), respectively, and the sROC AUC was 0.84 (95% CI 0.81–0.87). Subgroup analysis showed significantly better sensitivity with high b-values (> 1000 s/mm2). There was high statistical heterogeneity between studies.  Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of combined DWI and T2WI is good with high b-values (> 1000 s/mm2) seeming to improve overall sensitivity while maintaining specificity. However, further large-scale studies specifically looking at b-value choice are required before a categorical recommendation can be made

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the accuracy of serological tests to support the diagnosis of coeliac disease

BACKGROUND: There is growing support for a biopsy avoidant approach to diagnose coeliac disease in both children and adults, using a serological diagnosis instead. AIMS: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coeliac disease in adults and children. METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched between January 1990 and August 2020. Eligible diagnostic studies evaluated the accuracy of serological tests for coeliac disease against duodenal biopsy. Risk of bias assessment was performed using QUADAS-2. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate serology sensitivity and specificity at the most commonly reported thresholds. RESULTS: 113 studies (n = 28,338) were included, all in secondary care populations. A subset of studies were included in meta-analyses due to variations in diagnostic thresholds. Summary sensitivity and specificity of immunoglobulin A (IgA) anti-tissue transglutaminase were 90.7% (95% confidence interval: 87.3%, 93.2%) and 87.4% (84.4%, 90.0%) in adults (5 studies) and 97.7% (91.0%, 99.4%) and 70.2% (39.3%, 89.6%) in children (6 studies); and of IgA endomysial antibodies were 88.0% (75.2%, 94.7%) and 99.6% (92.3%, 100%) in adults (5 studies) and 94.5% (88.9%, 97.3%) and 93.8% (85.2%, 97.5%) in children (5 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-tissue transglutaminase sensitivity appears to be sufficient to rule out coeliac disease in children. The high specificity of endomysial antibody in adults supports its use to rule in coeliac disease. This evidence underpins the current development of clinical guidelines for a serological diagnosis of coeliac disease. Studies in primary care are needed to evaluate serological testing strategies in this setting

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) can help to rule out colorectal cancer in patients presenting in primary care with lower abdominal symptoms:a systematic review conducted to inform new NICE DG30 diagnostic guidance

__Background:__ This study has attempted to assess the effectiveness of quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) for triage of people presenting with lower abdominal symptoms, where a referral to secondary care for investigation of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) is being considered, particularly when the 2-week criteria are not met. __Methods:__ We conducted a systematic review following published guidelines for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Twenty-one resources were searched up until March 2016. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model. __Results:__ Nine studies are included in this review. One additional study, included in our systematic review, was provided as 'academic in confidence' and cannot be described herein. When FIT was based on a single faecal sample and a cut-off of 10 μg Hb/g faeces, sensitivity estimates indicated that a negative result using either the OC-Sensor or HM-JACKarc may be adequate to rule out nearly all CRC; the summary estimate of sensitivity for the OC-Sensor was 92.1%, based on four studies, and the only study of HM-JACKarc to assess the 10 μg Hb/g faeces cut-off reported a sensitivity of 100%. The corresponding specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3-91.0%) and 76.6%, respectively. When the diagnostic criterion was changed to include lower grades of neoplasia, i.e. the target condition included higher risk adenoma (HRA) as well as CRC, the rule-out performance of both FIT assays was reduced. __Conclusions:__ There is evidence to suggest that triage using FIT at a cut-off around 10 μg Hb/g faeces has the potential to correctly rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in 75-80% of symptomatic patients. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO 4201603772