Brain and grammar: revealing electrophysiological basic structures with competing statistical models.

Acoustic, lexical, and syntactic information are simultaneously processed in the brain requiring complex strategies to distinguish their electrophysiological activity. Capitalizing on previous works that factor out acoustic information, we could concentrate on the lexical and syntactic contribution to language processing by testing competing statistical models. We exploited electroencephalographic recordings and compared different surprisal models selectively involving lexical information, part of speech, or syntactic structures in various combinations. Electroencephalographic responses were recorded in 32 participants during listening to affirmative active declarative sentences. We compared the activation corresponding to basic syntactic structures, such as noun phrases vs. verb phrases. Lexical and syntactic processing activates different frequency bands, partially different time windows, and different networks. Moreover, surprisal models based on part of speech inventory only do not explain well the electrophysiological data, while those including syntactic information do. By disentangling acoustic, lexical, and syntactic information, we demonstrated differential brain sensitivity to syntactic information. These results confirm and extend previous measures obtained with intracranial recordings, supporting our hypothesis that syntactic structures are crucial in neural language processing. This study provides a detailed understanding of how the brain processes syntactic information, highlighting the importance of syntactic surprisal in shaping neural responses during language comprehension.

Adrenal Mass Biopsy in Patients Without Extraadrenal Primary Malignancy: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND. Adrenal washout CT is not useful for evaluating incidental adrenal masses in patients without known or suspected primary extraadrenal malignancy. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic utility of adrenal mass biopsy in patients without known or suspected extraadrenal primary malignancy. METHODS. This retrospective six-center study included 69 patients (mean age, 56 years; 32 men, 37 women) without known or suspected extraadrenal primary malignancy who underwent image-guided core needle biopsy between January 2004 and June 2021 of a mass suspected to be arising from the adrenal gland. Biopsy results were classified as diagnostic or nondiagnostic. For masses resected after biopsy, histopathologic concordance was assessed between diagnoses from biopsy and resection. Masses were classified as benign or malignant by resection or imaging follow-up, and all nondi-agnostic biopsies were classified as false results. RESULTS. The median mass size was 7.4 cm (range, 1.9-19.2 cm). Adrenal mass biopsy had a diagnostic yield of 64% (44/69; 95% CI, 51-75%). After biopsy, 25 masses were resected, and 44 had imaging follow-up. Of the masses that were resected after diagnostic biopsy, diagnosis was concordant between biopsy and resection in 100% (12/12). Of the 13 masses that were resected after nondiagnostic biopsy, the diagnosis from re-section was benign in eight masses and malignant in five masses. The 44 masses with imaging follow-up included one mass with diagnostic biopsy yielding benign adenoma and two masses with nondiagnostic biopsy results that were classified as malignant by imaging follow-up. Biopsy had overall sensitivity and specificity for malignancy of 73% (22/30) and 54% (21/39), respectively; diagnostic biopsies had sensitivity and specificity for malignancy of 96% (22/23) and 100% (21/21), respectively. Among nine nondi-agnostic biopsies reported as adrenocortical neoplasm, six were classified as malignant by the reference standard (resection showing adrenocortical carcinoma in four, resection showing adrenocortical neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential in one, imaging follow-up consistent with malignancy in one). CONCLUSION. Adrenal mass biopsy had low diagnostic yield, with low sensitivity and low specificity for malignancy. A biopsy result of adrenocortical neoplasm did not reliably differentiate benign and malignant adrenal masses. CLINICAL IMPACT. Biopsy appears to have limited utility for the evaluation of incidental adrenal masses in patients without primary extraadrenal malignancy.

How to Critically Appraise and Interpret Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Accuracy: A User Guide.

Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies can provide the best available evidence to inform decisions regarding the use of a diagnostic test. In this guide, the authors provide a practical approach for clinicians to appraise diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews and apply their results to patient care. The first step is to identify an appropriate systematic review with a research question matching the clinical scenario. The user should evaluate the rigor of the review methods to evaluate its credibility (Did the review use clearly defined eligibility criteria, a comprehensive search strategy, structured data collection, risk of bias and applicability appraisal, and appropriate meta-analysis methods?). If the review is credible, the next step is to decide whether the diagnostic performance is adequate for clinical use (Do sensitivity and specificity estimates exceed the threshold that makes them useful in clinical practice? Are these estimates sufficiently precise? Is variability in the estimates of diagnostic accuracy across studies explained?). Diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews that are judged to be credible and provide diagnostic accuracy estimates with sufficient certainty and relevance are the most useful to inform patient care. This review discusses comparative, noncomparative, and emerging approaches to systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy using a clinical scenario and examples based on recent publications.

Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI for Solid Renal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biparametric (bp)-MRI and multiparametric (mp)-MRI may improve the diagnostic accuracy of renal mass histology. PURPOSE: To evaluate the available evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of bp-MRI and mp-MRI for solid renal masses in differentiating malignant from benign, aggressive from indolent, and clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) from other histology. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review. POPULATION: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL up to January 11, 2022 were searched. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5 or 3 Tesla. ASSESSMENT: Eligible studies evaluated the accuracy of MRI (with at least two sequences: T2, T1, dynamic contrast and diffusion-weighted imaging) for diagnosis of solid renal masses in adult patients, using histology as reference standard. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. STATISTICAL TESTS: Meta-analysis using a bivariate logitnormal random effects model. RESULTS: We included 10 studies (1239 masses from approximately 1200 patients). The risk of bias was high in three studies, unclear in five studies and low in two studies. The diagnostic accuracy of malignant (vs. benign) masses was assessed in five studies (64% [179/281] malignant). The summary estimate of sensitivity was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 77%-99%), and specificity was 63% (95% CI: 46%-77%). No study assessed aggressive (vs. indolent) masses. The diagnostic accuracy of ccRCC (vs. other subtypes) was evaluated in six studies (47% [455/971] ccRCC): the summary estimate of sensitivity was 85% (95% CI: 77%-90%) and specificity was 77% (95% CI: 73%-81%). DATA CONCLUSION: Our study reveals deficits in the available evidence on MRI for diagnosis of renal mass histology. The number of studies was limited, at unclear/high risk of bias, with heterogeneous definitions of solid masses, imaging techniques, diagnostic criteria, and outcome measures. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Is There Evidence of P-Hacking in Imaging Research?

BACKGROUND: P-hacking, the tendency to run selective analyses until they become significant, is prevalent in many scientific disciplines. PURPOSE: This study aims to assess if p-hacking exists in imaging research. METHODS: Protocol, data, and code available here https://osf.io/xz9ku/?view_only=a9f7c2d841684cb7a3616f567db273fa. We searched imaging journals Ovid MEDLINE from 1972 to 2021. Text mining using Python script was used to collect metadata: journal, publication year, title, abstract, and P-values from abstracts. One P-value was randomly sampled per abstract. We assessed for evidence of p-hacking using a p-curve, by evaluating for a concentration of P-values just below .05. We conducted a one-tailed binomial test (α = .05 level of significance) to assess whether there were more P-values falling in the upper range (e.g., .045 < P < .05) than in the lower range (e.g., .04 < P < .045). To assess variation in results introduced by our random sampling of a single P-value per abstract, we repeated the random sampling process 1000 times and pooled results across the samples. Analysis was done (divided into 10-year periods) to determine if p-hacking practices evolved over time. RESULTS: Our search of 136 journals identified 967,981 abstracts. Text mining identified 293,687 P-values, and a total of 4105 randomly sampled P-values were included in the p-hacking analysis. The number of journals and abstracts that were included in the analysis as a fraction and percentage of the total number was, respectively, 108/136 (80%) and 4105/967,981 (.4%). P-values did not concentrate just under .05; in fact, there were more P-values falling in the lower range (e.g., .04 < P < .045) than falling just below .05 (e.g., .045 < P < .05), indicating lack of evidence for p-hacking. Time trend analysis did not identify p-hacking in any of the five 10-year periods. CONCLUSION: We did not identify evidence of p-hacking in abstracts published in over 100 imaging journals since 1972. These analyses cannot detect all forms of p-hacking, and other forms of bias may exist in imaging research such as publication bias and selective outcome reporting.

Technological Intervention to Improve Alarm Management in Acute Care Telemetry Units.

Background: Telemetry monitoring is intended to improve patient safety and reduce harm. However, excessive monitor alarms may have the undesired effect of staff ignoring, silencing, or delaying a response due to alarm fatigue. Outlier patients, or those patients who are responsible for generating the most monitor alarms, contribute to excessive monitor alarms. Methods: Daily alarm data reports at a large academic medical center indicated that one or two patient outliers generated the most alarms daily. A technological intervention aimed at reminding registered nurses (RNs) to adjust alarm thresholds for patients who triggered excessive alarms was implemented. The notification was sent to the assigned RN's mobile phone when a patient exceeded the unit's seven-day average of alarms per day by greater than 400%. Results: A reduction in average alarm duration was observed across the four acute care telemetry units (P < 0.001), with an overall decrease of 8.07 seconds in the postintervention versus preintervention period. However, alarm frequency increased significantly (χ23 = 34.83, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Implementing a technological intervention to notify RNs to adjust alarm parameters may reduce alarm duration. Reducing alarm duration may improve RN telemetry management, alarm fatigue, and awareness. More research is needed to support this conclusion, as well as to determine the cause of the observed increase in alarm frequency.

Evaluating the Impact of Peer Review on the Completeness of Reporting in Imaging Diagnostic Test Accuracy Research.

BACKGROUND: Despite the nearly ubiquitous reported use of peer review among reputable medical journals, there is limited evidence to support the use of peer review to improve the quality of biomedical research and in particular, imaging diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) research. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether peer review of DTA studies published by imaging journals is associated with changes in completeness of reporting, transparency for risk of bias assessment, and spin. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective cross-sectional study. STUDY SAMPLE: Cross-sectional study of articles published in Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (JMRI), Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (CARJ), and European Radiology (EuRad) before March 31, 2020. ASSESSMENT: Initial submitted and final versions of manuscripts were evaluated for completeness of reporting using the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 and STARD for Abstracts guidelines, transparency of reporting for risk of bias assessment based on Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2), and actual and potential spin using modified published criteria. STATISTICAL TESTS: Two-tailed paired t-tests and paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for comparisons. A P value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: We included 84 diagnostic accuracy studies accepted by three journals between 2014 and 2020 (JMRI = 30, CARJ = 23, and EuRad = 31) of the 692 which were screened. Completeness of reporting according to STARD 2015 increased significantly between initial submissions and final accepted versions (average reported items: 16.67 vs. 17.47, change of 0.80 [95% confidence interval 0.25-1.17]). No significant difference was found for the reporting of STARD for Abstracts (5.28 vs. 5.25, change of -0.03 [-0.15 to 0.11], P = 0.74), QUADAS-2 (6.08 vs. 6.11, change of 0.03 [-1.00 to 0.50], P = 0.92), actual "spin" (2.36 vs. 2.40, change of 0.04 [0.00 to 1.00], P = 0.39) or potential "spin" (2.93 vs. 2.81, change of -0.12 [-1.00 to 0.00], P = 0.23) practices. CONCLUSION: Peer review is associated with a marginal improvement in completeness of reporting in published imaging DTA studies, but not with improvement in transparency for risk of bias assessment or reduction in spin. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 1.

Association of Accuracy, Conclusions, and Reporting Completeness With Acceptance by Radiology Conferences and Journals.

BACKGROUND: Preferential publication of studies with positive findings can lead to overestimation of diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. publication bias). Understanding the contribution of the editorial process to publication bias could inform interventions to optimize the evidence guiding clinical decisions. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate whether accuracy estimates, abstract conclusion positivity, and completeness of abstract reporting are associated with acceptance to radiology conferences and journals. STUDY TYPE: Meta-research. POPULATION: Abstracts submitted to radiology conferences (European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM)) from 2008 to 2018 and manuscripts submitted to radiology journals (Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging [JMRI]) from 2017 to 2018. Primary clinical studies evaluating sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic imaging test in humans with available editorial decisions were included. ASSESSMENT: Primary variables (Youden's index [YI > 0.8 vs. <0.8], abstract conclusion positivity [positive vs. neutral/negative], number of reported items on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] for Abstract guideline) and confounding variables (prospective vs. retrospective/unreported, sample size, study duration, interobserver agreement assessment, subspecialty, modality) were extracted. STATISTICAL TESTS: Multivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratio (OR) as a measure of the association between the primary variables and acceptance by radiology conferences and journals; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values were obtained; the threshold for statistical significance was P < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 1000 conference abstracts (500 ESGAR and 500 ISMRM) and 1000 journal manuscripts (505 Radiology and 495 JMRI) were included. Conference abstract acceptance was not significantly associated with YI (adjusted OR = 0.97 for YI > 0.8; CI = 0.70-1.35), conclusion positivity (OR = 1.21 for positive conclusions; CI = 0.75-1.90) or STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 0.96 per unit increase in reported items; CI = 0.82-1.18). Manuscripts with positive abstract conclusions were less likely to be accepted by radiology journals (OR = 0.45; CI = 0.24-0.86), while YI (OR = 0.85; CI = 0.56-1.29) and STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 1.06; CI = 0.87-1.30) showed no significant association. Positive conclusions were present in 86.7% of submitted conference abstracts and 90.2% of journal manuscripts. DATA CONCLUSION: Diagnostic test accuracy studies with positive findings were not preferentially accepted by the evaluated radiology conferences or journals. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Safety and efficacy of flecainide associated with beta-blockers in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy.

AIMS: Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is an inherited cardiomyopathy associated with a high risk of ventricular arrhythmia (VA). Current guidelines recommend beta-blockers as first-line medical therapy and if ineffective, sotalol or amiodarone. We describe our experience, as a tertiary centre for ARVC, with the effectiveness and tolerance of flecainide in addition to beta-blockers to prevent VA in ARVC. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively included 100 consecutive ARVC patients who received flecainide with beta-blockers between May 1999 and November 2017. Treatment persistence and related side effects were assessed, as was VA-free survival on treatment, 24-h Holter monitoring and programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) off- and on-treatment. Tolerance was good, with 10% flecainide discontinuations (lack of efficacy in six, atrial fibrillation in one, and side effects in three). No Brugada-induced electrocardiography pattern on flecainide or haemodynamic impairment was reported. Premature ventricular contraction burden at 24-h Holter monitoring was significantly decreased under treatment [median 415 (interquartile range, IQR 97-730) vs. 2370 (1572-3400) at baseline, P < 0.0001, n = 46]. Among the 33 patients with PVS under treatment, PVS was positive in 40% on-treatment vs. 94% off-treatment (P < 0.001). During a median follow-up of 47 months (IQR 23-73), 22 patients presented sustained VA on treatment, corresponding to an event rate of 5% [95% confidence interval (CI) (0.6-9)] at 1 year and 25% [95% CI (14-35)] at 5 years under treatment. No patient died. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that flecainide and beta-blockers association is complementary to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and catheter ablation and is safe for treating persistent symptomatic VA in patients with ARVC.

Subarachnoid hemorrhage diagnosed by lumbar puncture after negative computed tomography angiography head.

Acute headache is a common emergency department (ED) chief complaint that usually has a benign course. Rare etiologies such as subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) can lead to extensive disability or even death. If suspected, SAH requires an intricate and intensive diagnostic investigation. Classic teaching recommends computed tomography head imaging without contrast which, if negative, is followed by lumbar puncture (LP) to rule out SAH. With improvements in computed tomography (CT), practice patterns have begun to adjust to allow computed tomography angiography (CTA) to rule out SAH. This case report describes a 23-year-old woman presenting with headache, neck, and back pain. Her initial CT head and CTA head imaging was negative for SAH. However, 3 days later upon re-presentation to the ED with the same symptoms, an LP was positive for increasing red blood cell count in subsequent tubes. She was transferred to a facility with interventional neurology capabilities where digital subtraction angiography showed a left anterior choroidal saccular aneurysm for which she underwent coiling. Given recent changes in SAH clinical practice guidelines, this case highlights the importance of understanding the current limitations of CT imaging, understanding the risks and benefits of both CT and LP, and always maintaining a high suspicion for especially lethal and disabling conditions such as SAH.

Tweeting Bias in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Research: Does Title or Conclusion Positivity Influence Dissemination?

PURPOSE: To examine if tweeting bias exists within imaging literature by determining if diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies with positive titles or conclusions are tweeted more than non-positive studies. METHODS: DTA studies published between October 2011 to April 2016 were included. Positivity of titles and conclusions were assessed independently and in duplicate, with disagreements resolved by consensus. A negative binomial regression analysis controlling for confounding variables was performed to assess the relationship between title or conclusion positivity and tweets an article received in the 100 days post-publication. RESULTS: 354 DTA studies were included. Twenty-four (7%) titles and 300 (85%) conclusions were positive (or positive with qualifier); 1 (0.3%) title and 23 (7%) conclusions were negative; and 329 (93%) titles and 26 (7%) conclusions were neutral. Studies with positive, negative, and neutral titles received a mean of 0.38, 0.00, and 0.45 tweets per study; while those with positive, negative, and neutral conclusions received a mean of 0.44, 0.61, and 0.38 tweets per study. Regression coefficients were -0.05 (SE 0.46) for positive relative to non-positive titles, and -0.09 (SE 0.31) for positive relative to non-positive conclusions. The positivity of the title (P = 0.91) or conclusion (P = 0.76) was not significantly associated with the number of tweets an article received. CONCLUSIONS: The positivity of the title or conclusion for DTA studies does not influence the amount of tweets it receives suggesting that tweet bias is not present among imaging diagnostic accuracy studies. Study protocol available at https://osf.io/hdk2m/.

Reporting Bias in Imaging Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: Are Studies With Positive Conclusions or Titles Submitted and Published Faster?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether imaging diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies with positive conclusions or titles have a shorter time to publication than those with nonpositive (i.e., negative or neutral) conclusions or titles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included primary imaging DTA studies from systematic reviews published in 2015. The conclusion and title of each study were extracted, and their positivity was classified independently in duplicate. The time from study completion to publication was extracted and calculated. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate associations of conclusion and title positivity with time to publication, with adjustment made for potentially confounding variables. RESULTS: A total of 774 imaging DTA studies were included; time from study completion to publication could be calculated for 516 studies. The median time from completion to publication was 18 months (interquartile range, 13-26 months) for the 413 studies with positive conclusions, 23 months (interquartile range, 16-33 months) for the 63 studies with neutral conclusions, and 25 months (interquartile range, 15-38 months) for the 40 studies with negative conclusions. A positive conclusion was associated with a shorter time from study completion to publication compared with a non-positive conclusion (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.68). Of all included studies, 39 (5%) had positive titles, 731 (94%) had neutral titles, and 4 (< 1%) had negative titles. Positive titles were not significantly associated with a shorter time to study publication (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.75-1.69). CONCLUSION: Positive conclusions (but not titles) were associated with a shorter time from study completion to publication. This finding may contribute to an overrepresentation of positive results in the imaging DTA literature.

Documentation of Shared Decisionmaking in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: While patient-centered communication and shared decisionmaking are increasingly recognized as vital aspects of clinical practice, little is known about their characteristics in real-world emergency department (ED) settings. We constructed a natural language processing tool to identify patient-centered communication as documented in ED notes and to describe visit-level, site-level, and temporal patterns within a large health system. METHODS: This was a 2-part study involving (1) the development and validation of an natural language processing tool using regular expressions to identify shared decisionmaking and (2) a retrospective analysis using mixed effects logistic regression and trend analysis of shared decisionmaking and general patient discussion using the natural language processing tool to assess ED physician and advanced practice provider notes from 2013 to 2020. RESULTS: Compared to chart review of 600 ED notes, the accuracy rates of the natural language processing tool for identification of shared decisionmaking and general patient discussion were 96.7% (95% CI 94.9% to 97.9%) and 88.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 86.1% to 91.3%), respectively. The natural language processing tool identified shared decisionmaking in 58,246 (2.2%) and general patient discussion in 590,933 (22%) notes. From 2013 to 2020, natural language processing-detected shared decisionmaking increased 300% and general patient discussion increased 50%. We observed higher odds of shared decisionmaking documentation among physicians versus advanced practice providers (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.23) and among female versus male patients (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.15). Black patients had lower odds of shared decisionmaking (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.88) compared with White patients. Shared decisionmaking and general patient discussion were also associated with higher levels of triage and commercial insurance status. CONCLUSION: In this study, we developed and validated an natural language processing tool using regular expressions to extract shared decisionmaking from ED notes and found multiple potential factors contributing to variation, including social, demographic, temporal, and presentation characteristics.

Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evaluation of "Spin" in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in High-Impact Factor Journals.

BACKGROUND: To compare the frequency of "spin" in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies in high-impact journals with the frequency a previously assessed series of reviews. METHODS: Medline was searched from January 2010 to January 2019. Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies were included if they reported a meta-analysis and were published in a journal with an impact factor >5. Two investigators independently scored each included systematic review for positivity of conclusions and for actual and potential overinterpretation practices. RESULTS: Of 137 included systematic reviews, actual overinterpretation was present in ≥1 form in the abstract in 63 (46%) and in the full-text report in 52 (38%); 108 (79%) contained a form of potential overinterpretation. Compared with the previously assessed series (reviews published 2015-2016), reviews in this series were less likely to contain ≥1 form of actual overinterpretation in the abstract and full-text report or ≥1 form of potential overinterpretation (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). The significance of these comparisons did not persist for actual overinterpretation in sensitivity analysis in which Cochrane systematic reviews were removed. Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were less likely to contain actual overinterpretation in the abstract or the full-text report than reviews in other high-impact journals (P < 0.001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies in high-impact journals are less likely to contain overinterpretation or spin. This difference is largely due to the reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, which contain spin less often than reviews published in other high-impact journals.

Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) to differentiate uric acid from non-uric acid calculi: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Uric acid stone diagnosis is presently done primarily with in vitro analysis of stones. In vivo diagnosis with dual-energy CT (DECT) would allow earlier initiation of therapy with urine alkalinization and avoid surgical intervention. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if DECT, using stone analysis as reference standard, is sufficiently accurate to replace stone analysis for diagnosis of uric acid stones. METHODS: Original studies in patients with urolithiasis examined with DECT with stone analysis as the reference standard were eligible for inclusion. MEDLINE (1946-2018), Embase (1947-2018), CENTRAL (August 2018), and multiple urology and radiology conferences were searched. QUADAS-2 was used to assess risk of bias and applicability. Meta-analyses were performed using a bivariate random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies (1105 patients, 1442 stones) were included. Fourteen studies containing 662 patients (944 stones) were analyzed in the uric acid dominant target condition (majority of stone composition uric acid): mean sensitivity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.79-0.93) and specificity 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99). Thirteen studies (674 patients, 760 stones) were analyzed in the uric acid-containing target condition (< majority of stone composition uric acid): mean sensitivity was 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.89) and specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.98). Meta-regression showed no significant variability in test accuracy. Two studies had one or more domains at high risk of bias and there were no concerns regarding applicability. CONCLUSION: DECT is an accurate replacement test for diagnosis of uric acid calculi in vivo, such that stone analysis could be replaced in the diagnostic pathway. This would enable earlier initiation of urine alkalinization. KEY POINTS: • DECT for uric acid dominant stones has sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.79-0.93) and specificity of 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99); uric acid-containing stones had mean sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.89) and specificity of 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.98). • Meta-regression did not identify any variables (study design, reference standard, dual-energy CT type, dose, risk of bias) that influenced test accuracy. • Only 2 of the 21 included studies had 1 or more domain considered to be at high risk of bias with the majority of domains considered at low risk of bias; there were no concerns regarding applicability in any of the included studies.

Publication bias in diagnostic imaging: conference abstracts with positive conclusions are more likely to be published.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether imaging diagnostic test accuracy conference abstracts with positive conclusions or titles are more likely to reach full-text publication than those with negative (or neutral) conclusions or titles. METHODS: Diagnostic accuracy research abstracts were included if they were presented at the 2011 or 2012 Radiological Society of North America conference. Full-text publication status at 5 years post conference abstract submission was determined. Conclusion and title positivity of conference abstracts were extracted, as well as potential confounding factors. The associations of conclusion and title positivity with publication status at 5 years post conference abstract submission were assessed using a multivariable logistic regression model. Conditional odds ratios were calculated to express the strength of associations, adjusting for the confounders. RESULTS: In total, 282/400 (71%) of included conference abstracts reached full-text publication. A total of 246 out of 337 (74%) conference abstracts with positive conclusions resulted in full-text publications, compared with 26/48 (54%) with neutral conclusions and 5/15 (33%) with negative conclusions. In multivariable logistic regression, conclusion positivity was significantly associated with full-text publication (odds ratio 3.6; 95% CI 1.9-6.7 for conference abstracts with positive conclusions, compared with those with non-positive conclusions); this did not apply to title positivity (odds ratio 1.2; 95% CI 0.47-3.0). CONCLUSION: Imaging conference abstracts with positive conclusions were more likely to be published as full-text articles. Title positivity was not associated with publication. This preferential publication pattern may lead to an overrepresentation of positive studies in the literature. An overrepresentation of positive studies may contribute to inflated estimates of test accuracy and has the potential to adversely influence patient care. KEY POINTS: • Imaging diagnostic test accuracy conference abstracts with positive conclusions were more likely to be reported as full-text articles than those with non-positive conclusions. • The majority (75%) of imaging diagnostic test accuracy conference abstracts with positive conclusions were published, compared with only 53% and 33% with neutral and negative conclusions, respectively. • Conclusion positivity remained associated with the full-text publication of conference abstracts when controlling for multiple potential confounding variables.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

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.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

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.

Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Based on the PRISMA-DTA Reporting Guideline.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the completeness of reporting of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews using the recently developed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA)-DTA guidelines. METHODS: MEDLINE® was searched for DTA systematic reviews published October 2017 to January 2018. The search time span was modulated to reach the desired sample size of 100 systematic reviews. Reporting on a per-item basis using PRISMA-DTA was evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred reviews were included. Mean reported items were 18.6 of 26 (71%; SD = 1.9) for PRISMA-DTA and 5.5 of 11 (50%; SD = 1.2) for PRISMA-DTA for abstracts. Items in the results were frequently reported. Items related to protocol registration, characteristics of included studies, results synthesis, and definitions used in data extraction were infrequently reported. Infrequently reported items from PRISMA-DTA for abstracts included funding information, strengths and limitations, characteristics of included studies, and assessment of applicability. Reporting completeness was higher in higher impact factor journals (18.9 vs 18.1 items; P = 0.04), studies that cited PRISMA (18.9 vs 17.7 items; P = 0.003), or used supplementary material (19.1 vs 18.0 items; P = 0.004). Variability in reporting was associated with author country (P = 0.04) but not journal (P = 0.6), abstract word count limitations (P = 0.9), PRISMA adoption (P = 0.2), structured abstracts (P = 0.2), study design (P = 0.8), subspecialty area (P = 0.09), or index test (P = 0.5). Abstracts with a higher word count were more informative (R = 0.4; P < 0.001). No association with word counts was observed for full-text reports (R = -0.03; P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Recently published reports of DTA systematic reviews are not fully informative when evaluated against the PRISMA-DTA guidelines. These results should guide knowledge translation strategies, including journal level (e.g., PRISMA-DTA adoption, increased abstract word count, and use of supplementary material) and author level (PRISMA-DTA citation awareness) strategies.

Citation bias in imaging research: are studies with higher diagnostic accuracy estimates cited more often?

OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of citation bias in imaging diagnostic accuracy research by evaluating whether studies with higher accuracy estimates are cited more frequently than those with lower accuracy estimates. METHODS: We searched Medline for diagnostic accuracy meta-analyses published in imaging journals from January 2005 to April 2016. Primary studies from the meta-analyses were screened; those assessing the diagnostic accuracy of an imaging test and reporting sensitivity and specificity were eligible for inclusion. Studies not indexed in Web of Science, duplicates, and inaccessible articles were excluded. Topic (modality/subspecialty), study design, sample size, journal impact factor, publication date, times cited, sensitivity, and specificity were extracted for each study. Negative binomial regression was performed to evaluate the association of citation rate (times cited per month since publication) with Youden's index (sensitivity + specificity -1), highest sensitivity, and highest specificity, controlling for the potential confounding effects of modality, subspecialty, impact factor, study design, sample size, and source meta-analysis. RESULTS: There were 1016 primary studies included. A positive association between Youden's index and citation rate was present, with a regression coefficient of 0.33 (p = 0.016). The regression coefficient for sensitivity was 0.41 (p = 0.034), and for specificity, 0.32 (p = 0.15). CONCLUSION: A positive association exists between diagnostic accuracy estimates and citation rates, indicating that there is evidence of citation bias in imaging diagnostic accuracy literature. Overestimation of imaging test accuracy may contribute to patient harm from incorrect interpretation of test results. KEY POINTS: • Studies with higher accuracy estimates may be cited more frequently than those with lower accuracy estimates. • This citation bias could lead clinicians, reviews, and clinical practice guidelines to overestimate the accuracy of imaging tests, contributing to patient harm from incorrect interpretation of test results.