A simple, clinically usable whole-body MRI system of joint assessment in adolescents and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To introduce and evaluate a simple method for assessing joint inflammation and structural damage on whole-body MRI (WBMRI) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), which is usable in clinical practice. METHODS: The proposed system utilises post-contrast Dixon WBMRI scans. Joints are assessed for synovitis (grade 0-2) and structural damage (present/absent) at 81 sites. The synovitis grading is based on features including above-normal intensity synovial enhancement, synovial hypertrophy, joint effusion, subarticular bone marrow oedema and peri-articular soft tissue oedema.This system was evaluated in a prospective study of 60 young people (47 patients with JIA and 13 controls with non-inflammatory musculoskeletal pain) who underwent a WBMRI. Three readers (blinded to diagnosis) independently reviewed all images and re-reviewed 20 individual scans. The intra- and inter-reader overall agreement (OA) and the intra- and inter-reader Gwet's agreement coefficients 2 (GAC2) were measured for the detection of a) participants with ≥1 joint with inflammation or structural damage and b) joint inflammation or structural damage for each joint. RESULTS: The inter-reader OA for detecting patients with ≥1 joint with inflammation, defined as grade 2 synovitis (G2), and ≥1 joint with structural damage were 80% and 73%, respectively. The intra-reader OA for readers 1-3 were 80-90% and 75-90% respectively. The inter-reader OA and GAC2 for joint inflammation (G2) at each joint were both ≥85% for all joints but were lower if grade 1 synovitis was included as positive. CONCLUSION: The intra- and inter-reader agreements of this WBMRI assessment system are adequate for assessing objective joint inflammation and damage in JIA.

Detection of inflammation by whole-body MRI in young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the frequency of joint inflammation detected by whole-body MRI (WBMRI) in young people (YP) with JIA and controls, and to determine the relationship between WBMRI-detected inflammation and clinical findings. METHODS: YP aged 14-24 years, with JIA (patients) or arthralgia without JIA (controls), recruited from one centre, underwent a WBMRI scan after formal clinical assessment. Consensus between at least two of the three independent radiologists was required to define inflammation and damage on WBMRI, according to predefined criteria. YP with JIA were deemed clinically active as per accepted definitions. The proportions of YP with positive WBMRI scans for joint inflammation (≥1 inflamed joint) as well as serum biomarkers were compared between active vs inactive JIA patients and controls. RESULTS: Forty-seven YP with JIA (25 active and 22 inactive patients) and 13 controls were included. WBMRI detected joint inflammation in 60% (28/47) patients with JIA vs 15% (2/13) controls (difference: 44%, 95% CI 20%, 68%). More active than inactive JIA patients had WBMRI-detected inflammation [76% (19/25) vs 41% (9/22), difference: 35% (95% CI 9%, 62%)], and this was associated with a specific biomarker signature. WBMRI identified inflammation in ≥ 1 clinically inactive joint in 23/47 (49%) patients (14/25 active vs 9/22 inactive JIA patients). CONCLUSIONS: WBMRI's validity in joint assessment was demonstrated by the higher frequency of inflammation in JIA patients vs controls, and in active vs inactive JIA patients. WBMRI found unsuspected joint inflammation in 49% YP with JIA, which needs further investigation of potential clinical implications.

Meta-research: How many diagnostic or prognostic models published in radiological journals are evaluated externally?

OBJECTIVES: Prognostic and diagnostic models must work in their intended clinical setting, proven via "external evaluation", preferably by authors uninvolved with model development. By systematic review, we determined the proportion of models published in high-impact radiological journals that are evaluated subsequently. METHODS: We hand-searched three radiological journals for multivariable diagnostic/prognostic models 2013-2015 inclusive, developed using regression. We assessed completeness of data presentation to allow subsequent external evaluation. We then searched literature to August 2022 to identify external evaluations of these index models. RESULTS: We identified 98 index studies (73 prognostic; 25 diagnostic) describing 145 models. Only 15 (15%) index studies presented an evaluation (two external). No model was updated. Only 20 (20%) studies presented a model equation. Just 7 (15%) studies developing Cox models presented a risk table, and just 4 (9%) presented the baseline hazard. Two (4%) studies developing non-Cox models presented the intercept. Just 20 (20%) articles presented a Kaplan-Meier curve of the final model. The 98 index studies attracted 4224 citations (including 559 self-citations), median 28 per study. We identified just six (6%) subsequent external evaluations of an index model, five of which were external evaluations by researchers uninvolved with model development, and from a different institution. CONCLUSIONS: Very few prognostic or diagnostic models published in radiological literature are evaluated externally, suggesting wasted research effort and resources. Authors' published models should present data sufficient to allow external evaluation by others. To achieve clinical utility, researchers should concentrate on model evaluation and updating rather than continual redevelopment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The large majority of prognostic and diagnostic models published in high-impact radiological journals are never evaluated. It would be more efficient for researchers to evaluate existing models rather than practice continual redevelopment. KEY POINTS: • Systematic review of highly cited radiological literature identified few diagnostic or prognostic models that were evaluated subsequently by researchers uninvolved with the original model. • Published radiological models frequently omit important information necessary for others to perform an external evaluation: Only 20% of studies presented a model equation or nomogram. • A large proportion of research citing published models focuses on redevelopment and ignores evaluation and updating, which would be a more efficient use of research resources.

Diagnostic performance of sonographic activity scores for adult terminal ileal Crohn's disease compared to magnetic resonance and histological reference standards: experience from the METRIC trial.

OBJECTIVES: The simple ultrasound activity score for Crohn's disease (SUS-CD) and bowel ultrasound score (BUSS) are promising intestinal ultrasound (IUS) indices of CD, but studied mainly in small settings with few sonographers. We compared SUS-CD and BUSS against histological and magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) reference standards in a post hoc analysis of a prospective multicentre, multireader trial. METHODS: Participants recruited to the METRIC trial (ISRCTN03982913) were studied, including those with available terminal ileal (TI) biopsies. Sensitivity and specificity of SUS-CD and BUSS for TI CD activity were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI), from the prospective observations of the original METRIC trial sonographers against the histological activity index (HAI) and the simplified magnetic resonance index of activity (sMARIA). RESULTS: We included 284 patients (median 31.5 years, IQR 23-46) from 8 centres, who underwent IUS and MRE. Of these, 111 patients had available terminal ileal biopsies with HAI scoring. Against histology, sensitivity and specificity for active disease were 79% (95% CI 69-86%) and 50% (31-69%) for SUS-CD, and 66% (56-75%) and 68% (47-84%) for BUSS, respectively. Compared to sMARIA, the sensitivity and specificity for active CD were 81% (74-86%) and 75% (66-83%) for SUS-CD, and 68% (61-74%) and 85% (76-91%) for BUSS, respectively. The sensitivity of SUS-CD was significantly greater than that of BUSS against HAI and sMARIA (p < 0.001), but its specificity was significantly lower than of BUSS against the MRE reference standard (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Particularly when compared to MRE activity scoring, SUS-CD and BUSS are promising tools in a real-world clinical setting. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: When tested using data from a multicentre, multireader diagnostic accuracy trial, the simple ultrasound activity score for Crohn's disease (SUS-CD) and bowel ultrasound score (BUSS) were clinically viable intestinal ultrasound indices that were reasonably sensitive and specific for terminal ileal Crohn's disease, especially when compared to a magnetic resonance reference standard. KEY POINTS: The simple ultrasound activity score for Crohn's disease and bowel ultrasound score are promising intestinal ultrasound indices of Crohn's disease but to date studied mainly in small settings with few sonographers. Compared to histology and the magnetic resonance reference standard in a multicentre, multireader setting, the sensitivity of simple ultrasound activity score for Crohn's disease is significantly greater than that of bowel ultrasound score. The specificity of simple ultrasound activity score for Crohn's disease was significantly lower than that of bowel ultrasound score compared to the magnetic resonance enterography reference standard. The specificity of both indices was numerically higher when the magnetic resonance enterography reference standard was adopted.

Identifying the Optimum Strategy for Identifying Adults and Children With Celiac Disease: A Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Celiac disease (CD) is thought to affect around 1% of people in the United Kingdom, but only approximately 30% are diagnosed. The aim of this work was to assess the cost-effectiveness of strategies for identifying adults and children with CD in terms of who to test and which tests to use. METHODS: A decision tree and Markov model were used to describe testing strategies and model long-term consequences of CD. The analysis compared a selection of pre-test probabilities of CD above which patients should be screened, as well as the use of different serological tests, with or without genetic testing. Value of information analysis was used to prioritize parameters for future research. RESULTS: Using serological testing alone in adults, immunoglobulin A (IgA) tissue transglutaminase (tTG) at a 1% pre-test probability (equivalent to population screening) was most cost-effective. If combining serological testing with genetic testing, human leukocyte antigen combined with IgA tTG at a 5% pre-test probability was most cost-effective. In children, the most cost-effective strategy was a 10% pre-test probability with human leukocyte antigen plus IgA tTG. Value of information analysis highlighted the probability of late diagnosis of CD and the accuracy of serological tests as important parameters. The analysis also suggested prioritizing research in adult women over adult men or children. CONCLUSIONS: For adults, these cost-effectiveness results suggest UK National Screening Committee Criteria for population-based screening for CD should be explored. Substantial uncertainty in the results indicate a high value in conducting further research.

Investigating harms of testing for ovarian cancer - psychological outcomes and cancer conversion rates in women with symptoms of ovarian cancer: A cohort study embedded in the multicentre ROCkeTS prospective diagnostic study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate psychological correlates in women referred with suspected ovarian cancer via the fast-track pathway, explore how anxiety and distress levels change at 12 months post-testing, and report cancer conversion rates by age and referral pathway. DESIGN: Single-arm prospective cohort study. SETTING: Multicentre. Secondary care including outpatient clinics and emergency admissions. POPULATION: A cohort of 2596 newly presenting symptomatic women with a raised CA125 level, abnormal imaging or both. METHODS: Women completed anxiety and distress questionnaires at recruitment and at 12 months for those who had not undergone surgery or a biopsy within 3 months of recruitment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anxiety and distress levels measured using a six-item short form of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6) and the Impact of Event Scale - Revised (IES-r) questionnaire. Ovarian cancer (OC) conversion rates by age, menopausal status and referral pathway. RESULTS: Overall, 1355/2596 (52.1%) and 1781/2596 (68.6%) experienced moderate-to-severe distress and anxiety, respectively, at recruitment. Younger age and emergency presentations had higher distress levels. The clinical category for anxiety and distress remained unchanged/worsened in 76% of respondents at 12 months, despite a non-cancer diagnosis. The OC rates by age were 1.6% (95% CI 0.5%-5.9%) for age <40 years and 10.9% (95% CI 8.7%-13.6%) for age ≥40 years. In women referred through fast-track pathways, 3.3% (95% CI 1.9%-5.7%) of pre- and 18.5% (95% CI 16.1%-21.0%) of postmenopausal women were diagnosed with OC. CONCLUSIONS: Women undergoing diagnostic testing display severe anxiety and distress. Younger women are especially vulnerable and should be targeted for support. Women under the age of 40 years have low conversion rates and we advocate reducing testing in this group to reduce the harms of testing.

Prognostic factors to identify resolution of small bowel obstruction without need for operative management: systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify imaging, clinical, and laboratory variables potentially prognostic for surgical management of small bowel obstruction. METHODS: Two researchers systematically reviewed indexed literature 2001-2021 inclusive for imaging, clinical, and laboratory variables potentially predictive of surgical management of small bowl obstruction and/or ischaemia at surgery, where performed. Risk of bias was assessed. Contingency tables for variables reported in at least 5 studies were extracted and meta-analysed to identify strong evidence of association with clinical outcomes, across studies. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were ultimately included, reporting 4638 patients (44 to 313 per study). 11 (35%) studies raised no risk of bias concerns. CT was the modality reported most (29 studies, 94%). Meta-analysis of 21 predictors identified 5 strongly associated with surgical intervention, 3 derived from CT (peritoneal free fluid, odds ratio [OR] 3.24, 95%CI 2.45 to 4.29; high grade obstruction, OR 3.58, 95%CI 2.46 to 5.20; mesenteric inflammation, OR 2.61, 95%CI 1.94 to 3.50; abdominal distension, OR 2.43, 95%CI 1.34 to 4.42; peritonism, OR 3.97, 95%CI 2.67 to 5.90) and one with conservative management (previous abdominopelvic surgery, OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.40 to 0.85). Meta-analysis of 10 predictors identified 3 strongly associated with ischaemia at surgery, 2 derived from CT (peritoneal free fluid, OR 3.49, 95%CI 2.28 to 5.35; bowel thickening, OR 3.26 95%CI 1.91 to 5.55; white cell count, OR 4.76, 95%CI 2.71 to 8.36). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic review of patients with small bowel obstruction identified four imaging, three clinical, and one laboratory predictors associated strongly with surgical intervention and/or ischaemia at surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Via systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified imaging, clinical, and laboratory predictors strongly associated with surgical management of small bowel obstruction and/or ischaemia. Multivariable model development to guide management should incorporate these since they display strong evidence of potential utility. KEY POINTS: • While multivariable models incorporating clinical, laboratory, and imaging factors could predict surgical management of small bowel obstruction, none are used widely. • Via systematic review and meta-analysis we identified imaging, clinical, and laboratory variables strongly associated with surgical management and/or ischaemia at surgery. • Development of multivariable models to guide management should incorporate these predictors, notably CT scanning, since they display strong evidence of potential utility.

Health technology assessment of diagnostic tests: a state of the art review of methods guidance from international organizations.

OBJECTIVES: To identify which international health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are undertaking evaluations of medical tests, summarize commonalities and differences in methodological approach, and highlight examples of good practice. METHODS: A methodological review incorporating: systematic identification of HTA guidance documents mentioning evaluation of tests; identification of key contributing organizations and abstraction of approaches to all essential HTA steps; summary of similarities and differences between organizations; and identification of important emergent themes which define the current state of the art and frontiers where further development is needed. RESULTS: Seven key organizations were identified from 216 screened. The main themes were: elucidation of claims of test benefits; attitude to direct and indirect evidence of clinical effectiveness (including evidence linkage); searching; quality assessment; and health economic evaluation. With the exception of dealing with test accuracy data, approaches were largely based on general approaches to HTA with few test-specific modifications. Elucidation of test claims and attitude to direct and indirect evidence are where we identified the biggest dissimilarities in approach. CONCLUSIONS: There is consensus on some aspects of HTA of tests, such as dealing with test accuracy, and examples of good practice which HTA organizations new to test evaluation can emulate. The focus on test accuracy contrasts with universal acknowledgment that it is not a sufficient evidence base for test evaluation. There are frontiers where methodological development is urgently required, notably integrating direct and indirect evidence and standardizing approaches to evidence linkage.

Are preoperative CT variables associated with the success or failure of subsequent ventral hernia repair: nested case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: Systematic review of CT measurements to predict the success or failure of subsequent ventral hernia repair has found limited data available in the indexed literature. To rectify this, we investigated multiple preoperative CT metrics to identify if any were associated with postoperative reherniation. METHODS: Following ethical permission, we identified patients who had undergone ventral hernia repair and had preoperative CT scanning available. Two radiologists made multiple measurements of the hernia and abdominal musculature from these scans, including loss of domain. Patients were divided subsequently into two groups, defined by hernia recurrence at 1-year subsequent to surgery. Hypothesis testing investigated any differences between CT measurements from each group. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight patients (95 male) were identified, 34 (18%) whose hernia had recurred by 1-year. Only three of 34 CT measurements were significantly different when patients whose hernia had recurred were compared to those who had not; these significant findings were assumed contingent on multiple testing. In particular, preoperative hernia volume (recurrence 155.3 cc [IQR 355.65] vs. no recurrence 78.2 [IQR 303.52], p = 0.26) nor loss of domain, whether calculated using the Tanaka (recurrence 0.02 [0.04] vs. no recurrence 0.009 [0.04], p = 0.33) or Sabbagh (recurrence 0.019 [0.05] vs. no recurrence 0.009 [0.04], p = 0.25) methods, differed between significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative CT measurements of ventral hernia morphology, including loss of domain, appear unrelated to postoperative recurrence. It is likely that the importance of such measurements to predict recurrence is outweighed by other patient factors and surgical reconstruction technique. KEY POINTS: • Preoperative CT scanning is often performed for ventral hernia but systematic review revealed little data regarding whether CT variables predict postoperative reherniation. • We found that the large majority of CT measurements, including loss of domain, did not differ significantly between patients whose hernia did and did not recur. • It is likely that the importance of CT measurements to predict recurrence is outweighed by other patient factors and surgical reconstruction technique.

Influence of oral contrast type and volume on patient experience and quality of luminal distension at MR Enterography in Crohn's disease: an observational study of patients recruited to the METRIC trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the distention quality and patient experience of oral mannitol and polyethylene glycol (PEG) for MRE. METHODS: This study is a retrospective, observational study of a subset of patients enrolled in a multicentre, prospective trial evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of MRE for small bowel Crohn's. Overall and segmental MRE small bowel distention, from 105 patients (64 F, mean age 37) was scored from 0 = poor to 4 = excellent by two experienced observers (68 [65%] mannitol and 37 [35%] PEG). Additionally, 130 patients (77 F, mean age 34) completed a questionnaire rating tolerability of various symptoms immediately and 2 days after MRE (85 [65%] receiving mannitol 45 [35%] receiving PEG). Distension was compared between agents and between those ingesting ≤ 1 L or > 1 L of mannitol using the test of proportions. Tolerability grades were collapsed into "very tolerable," "moderately tolerable," and "not tolerable." RESULTS: Per patient distension quality was similar between agents ("excellent" or "good" in 54% [37/68] versus 46% [17/37]) with mannitol and PEG respectively. Jejunal distension was significantly better with mannitol compared to PEG (40% [27/68] versus 14% [5/37] rated as excellent or good respectively). There was no significant difference according to the volume of mannitol ingested. Symptom tolerability was comparable between agents, although fullness following MRE was graded as "very tolerable" in 27% (12/45) of patients ingesting PEG, verses 44% (37/84) ingesting mannitol, difference 17% (95% CI 0.6 to 34%). CONCLUSION: Mannitol-based solutions and PEG generally achieve comparable distension quality and side effect profiles, although jejunal distension is better quality with mannitol. Neither distension quality nor side-effect profile is altered by ingestion of more than 1 L of mannitol. KEY POINTS: • Mannitol-based and PEG-based oral preparation agents generally achieve comparable distension quality for MRE with the exception of the jejunum which is better distended with mannitol. • Mannitol-based and PEG-based oral preparation agents used for MRE have similar side effect profiles. • Neither distension quality nor side-effect profile is altered by ingestion of more than 1 L of mannitol.

Point-of-care viral load tests to detect high HIV viral load in people living with HIV/AIDS attending health facilities.

BACKGROUND: Viral load (VL) testing in people living with HIV (PLHIV) helps to monitor antiretroviral therapy (ART). VL is still largely tested using central laboratory-based platforms, which have long test turnaround times and involve sophisticated equipment. VL tests with point-of-care (POC) platforms capable of being used near the patient are potentially easy to use, give quick results, are cost-effective, and could replace central or reference VL testing platforms. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of POC tests to detect high viral load levels in PLHIV attending healthcare facilities. SEARCH METHODS: We searched eight electronic databases using standard, extensive Cochrane search methods, and did not use any language, document type, or publication status limitations. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews, and consulted an expert in the field from the World Health Organization (WHO) HIV Department for potentially relevant studies. The latest search was 23 November 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included any primary study that compared the results of a VL test with a POC platform to that of a central laboratory-based reference test to detect high viral load in PLHIV on HIV/AIDS care or follow-up. We included all forms of POC tests for VL as defined by study authors, regardless of the healthcare facility in which the test was conducted. We excluded diagnostic case-control studies with healthy controls and studies that did not provide sufficient data to create the 2 × 2 tables to calculate sensitivity and specificity. We did not limit our study inclusion to age, gender, or geographical setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the search results to identify eligible articles. They also independently extracted data using a standardized data extraction form and conducted risk of bias assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Using participants as the unit of analysis, we fitted simplified univariable models for sensitivity and specificity separately, employing a random-effects model to estimate the summary sensitivity and specificity at the current and commonly reported World Health Organization (WHO) threshold (≥ 1000 copies/mL). The bivariate models did not converge to give a model estimate. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 studies (24 evaluations, 10,034 participants) defining high viral loads at main thresholds ≥ 1000 copies/mL (n = 20), ≥ 5000 copies/mL (n = 1), and ≥ 40 copies/mL (n = 3). All evaluations were done on samples from PLHIV retrieved from routine HIV/AIDS care centres or health facilities. For clinical applicability, we included 14 studies (20 evaluations, 8659 participants) assessing high viral load at the clinical threshold of ≥ 1000 copies/mL in the meta-analyses. Of these, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and Asia contributed 16, three, and one evaluation respectively. All included participants were on ART in only nine evaluations; in the other 11 evaluations the proportion of participants on ART was either partial or not clearly stated. Thirteen evaluations included adults only (n = 13), five mixed populations of adults and children, whilst in the remaining two the age of included populations was not clearly stated. The majority of evaluations included commercially available tests (n = 18). Ten evaluations were POC VL tests conducted near the patient in a peripheral or onsite laboratory, whilst the other 10 were evaluations of POC VL tests in a central or reference laboratory setting. The test types evaluated as POC VL tests included Xpert HIV-1 Viral Load test (n = 8), SAMBA HIV-1 Semi-Q Test (n = 9), Alere Q NAT prototype assay for HIV-1 (n = 2) and m-PIMA HIV-1/2 Viral Load test (n = 1). The majority of evaluations (n = 17) used plasma samples, whilst the rest (n = 3) utilized whole blood samples. Pooled sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) of POC VL at a threshold of ≥ 1000 copies/mL was 96.6% (94.8 to 97.8) (20 evaluations, 2522 participants), and pooled specificity (95% CI) was 95.7% (90.8 to 98.0) (20 evaluations, 6137 participants). Median prevalence for high viral load (≥ 1000 copies/mL) (n = 20) was 33.4% (range 6.9% to 88.5%). Limitations The risk of bias was mostly assessed as unclear across the four domains due to incomplete reporting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found POC VL to have high sensitivity and high specificity for the diagnosis of high HIV viral load in PLHIV attending healthcare facilities at a clinical threshold of ≥ 1000 copies/mL.

Menopausal status, ultrasound and biomarker tests in combination for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in symptomatic women.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer (OC) has the highest case fatality rate of all gynaecological cancers. Diagnostic delays are caused by non-specific symptoms. Existing systematic reviews have not comprehensively covered tests in current practice, not estimated accuracy separately in pre- and postmenopausal women, or used inappropriate meta-analytic methods. OBJECTIVES: To establish the accuracy of combinations of menopausal status, ultrasound scan (USS) and biomarkers for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in pre- and postmenopausal women and compare the accuracy of different test combinations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), five other databases and three trial registries from 1991 to 2015 and MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) form June 2015 to June 2019. We also searched conference proceedings from the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, International Gynecologic Cancer Society, American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, ZETOC and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Web of Knowledge). We searched reference lists of included studies and published systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating single tests or comparing two or more tests, randomised trials comparing two or more tests, and studies validating multivariable models for the diagnosis of OC investigating test combinations, compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or clinical follow-up in women with a pelvic mass (detected clinically or through USS) suspicious for OC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using QUADAS-2. We used the bivariate hierarchical model to indirectly compare tests at commonly reported thresholds in pre- and postmenopausal women separately. We indirectly compared tests across all thresholds and estimated sensitivity at fixed specificities of 80% and 90% by fitting hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models in pre- and postmenopausal women separately. MAIN RESULTS: We included 59 studies (32,059 women, 9545 cases of OC). Two tests evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and USS findings (IOTA Logistic Regression Model 2 (LR2) and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model (ADNEX)); one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status, USS findings and serum biomarker CA125 (Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI)); and one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and two serum biomarkers (CA125 and HE4) (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA)). Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in participant, reference standard, and flow and timing domains. All studies were in hospital settings. Prevalence was 16% (RMI, ROMA), 22% (LR2) and 27% (ADNEX) in premenopausal women and 38% (RMI), 45% (ROMA), 52% (LR2) and 55% (ADNEX) in postmenopausal women. The prevalence of OC in the studies was considerably higher than would be expected in symptomatic women presenting in community-based settings, or in women referred from the community to hospital with a suspicion of OC. Studies were at high or unclear applicability because presenting features were not reported, or USS was performed by experienced ultrasonographers for RMI, LR2 and ADNEX. The higher sensitivity and lower specificity observed in postmenopausal compared to premenopausal women across all index tests and at all thresholds may reflect highly selected patient cohorts in the included studies. In premenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 13.1 (± 2), LR2 at a threshold to achieve a post-test probability of OC of 10% and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 77.4%, 95% CI 72.7% to 81.5%; LR2: 83.3%, 95% CI 74.7% to 89.5%; ADNEX: 95.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 97.8%) compared to RMI (57.2%, 95% CI 50.3% to 63.8%). The specificity of ROMA and ADNEX were lower in premenopausal women (ROMA: 84.3%, 95% CI 81.2% to 87.0%; ADNEX: 77.8%, 95% CI 67.4% to 85.5%) compared to RMI 92.5% (95% CI 90.3% to 94.2%). The specificity of LR2 was comparable to RMI (90.4%, 95% CI 84.6% to 94.1%). In postmenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2), LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 90.3%, 95% CI 87.5% to 92.6%; LR2: 94.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 96.6%; ADNEX: 97.6%, 95% CI 95.6% to 98.7%) compared to RMI (78.4%, 95% CI 74.6% to 81.7%). Specificity of ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2) (81.5, 95% CI 76.5% to 85.5%) was comparable to RMI (85.4%, 95% CI 82.0% to 88.2%), whereas for LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) specificity was lower (LR2: 60.6%, 95% CI 50.5% to 69.9%; ADNEX: 55.0%, 95% CI 42.8% to 66.6%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In specialist healthcare settings in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women, RMI has poor sensitivity. In premenopausal women, ROMA, LR2 and ADNEX offer better sensitivity (fewer missed cancers), but for ROMA and ADNEX this is off-set by a decrease in specificity and increase in false positives. In postmenopausal women, ROMA demonstrates a higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to RMI. ADNEX has the highest sensitivity in postmenopausal women, but reduced specificity. The prevalence of OC in included studies is representative of a highly selected referred population, rather than a population in whom referral is being considered. The comparative accuracy of tests observed here may not be transferable to non-specialist settings. Ultimately health systems need to balance accuracy and resource implications to identify the most suitable test.

QUADAS-C: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

Comparative diagnostic test accuracy studies assess and compare the accuracy of 2 or more tests in the same study. Although these studies have the potential to yield reliable evidence regarding comparative accuracy, shortcomings in the design, conduct, and analysis may bias their results. The currently recommended quality assessment tool for diagnostic test accuracy studies, QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2), is not designed for the assessment of test comparisons. The QUADAS-C (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative) tool was developed as an extension of QUADAS-2 to assess the risk of bias in comparative diagnostic test accuracy studies. Through a 4-round Delphi study involving 24 international experts in test evaluation and a face-to-face consensus meeting, an initial version of the tool was developed that was revised and finalized following a pilot study among potential users. The QUADAS-C tool retains the same 4-domain structure of QUADAS-2 (Patient Selection, Index Test, Reference Standard, and Flow and Timing) and comprises additional questions to each QUADAS-2 domain. A risk-of-bias judgment for comparative accuracy requires a risk-of-bias judgment for the accuracy of each test (resulting from QUADAS-2) and additional criteria specific to test comparisons. Examples of such additional criteria include whether participants either received all index tests or were randomly assigned to index tests, and whether index tests were interpreted with blinding to the results of other index tests. The QUADAS-C tool will be useful for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy addressing comparative questions. Furthermore, researchers may use this tool to identify and avoid risk of bias when designing a comparative diagnostic test accuracy study.

Why did European Radiology reject my radiomic biomarker paper? How to correctly evaluate imaging biomarkers in a clinical setting.

This review explains in simple terms, accessible to the non-statistician, general principles regarding the correct research methods to develop and then evaluate imaging biomarkers in a clinical setting, including radiomic biomarkers. The distinction between diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers is made and emphasis placed on the need to assess clinical utility within the context of a multivariable model. Such models should not be restricted to imaging biomarkers and must include relevant disease and patient characteristics likely to be clinically useful. Biomarker utility is based on whether its addition to the basic clinical model improves diagnosis or prediction. Approaches to both model development and evaluation are explained and the need for adequate amounts of representative data stressed so as to avoid underpowering and overfitting. Advice is provided regarding how to report the research correctly. KEY POINTS: • Imaging biomarker research is common but methodological errors are encountered frequently that may mean the research is not clinically useful. • The clinical utility of imaging biomarkers is best assessed by their additive effect on multivariable models based on clinical factors known to be important. • The data used to develop such models should be sufficient for the number of variables investigated and the model should be evaluated, preferably using data unrelated to development.

Point-of-care tests detecting HIV nucleic acids for diagnosis of HIV-1 or HIV-2 infection in infants and children aged 18 months or less.

BACKGROUND: The standard method of diagnosing HIV in infants and children less than 18 months is with a nucleic acid amplification test reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test (NAT RT-PCR) detecting viral ribonucleic acid (RNA). Laboratory testing using the RT-PCR platform for HIV infection is limited by poor access, logistical support, and delays in relaying test results and initiating therapy in low-resource settings. The use of rapid diagnostic tests at or near the point-of-care (POC) can increase access to early diagnosis of HIV infection in infants and children less than 18 months of age and timely initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART). OBJECTIVES: To summarize the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care nucleic acid-based testing (POC NAT) to detect HIV-1/HIV-2 infection in infants and children aged 18 months or less exposed to HIV infection. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (until 2 February 2021), MEDLINE and Embase (until 1 February 2021), and LILACS and Web of Science (until 2 February 2021) with no language or publication status restriction. We also searched conference websites and clinical trial registries, tracked reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews, and consulted experts for potentially eligible studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We defined POC tests as rapid diagnostic tests conducted at or near the patient site. We included any primary study that compared the results of a POC NAT to a reference standard of laboratory NAT RT-PCR or total nucleic acid testing to detect the presence or absence of HIV infection denoted by HIV viral nucleic acids in infants and children aged 18 months or less who were exposed to HIV-1/HIV-2 infection. We included cross-sectional, prospective, and retrospective study designs and those that provided sufficient data to create the 2 × 2 table to calculate sensitivity and specificity. We excluded diagnostic case control studies with healthy controls. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted information on study characteristics using a pretested standardized data extraction form. We used the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability concerns of the included studies. Two review authors independently selected and assessed the included studies, resolving any disagreements by consensus. The unit of analysis was the participant. We first conducted preliminary exploratory analyses by plotting estimates of sensitivity and specificity from each study on forest plots and in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space. For the overall meta-analyses, we pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity using the bivariate meta-analysis model at a common threshold (presence or absence of infection). MAIN RESULTS: We identified a total of 12 studies (15 evaluations, 15,120 participants). All studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. The ages of included infants and children in the evaluations were as follows: at birth (n = 6), ≤ 12 months (n = 3), ≤ 18 months (n = 5), and ≤ 24 months (n = 1). Ten evaluations were field evaluations of the POC NAT test at the point of care, and five were laboratory evaluations of the POC NAT tests.The POC NAT tests evaluated included Alere q HIV-1/2 Detect qualitative test (recently renamed m-PIMA q HIV-1/2 Detect qualitative test) (n = 6), Xpert HIV-1 qualitative test (n = 6), and SAMBA HIV-1 qualitative test (n = 3). POC NAT pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval (CI)) against laboratory reference standard tests were 98.6% (96.1 to 99.5) (15 evaluations, 1728 participants) and 99.9% (99.7 to 99.9) (15 evaluations, 13,392 participants) in infants and children ≤ 18 months. Risk of bias in the included studies was mostly low or unclear due to poor reporting. Five evaluations had some concerns for applicability for the index test, as they were POC tests evaluated in a laboratory setting, but there was no difference detected between settings in sensitivity (-1.3% (95% CI -4.1 to 1.5)); and specificity results were similar. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the diagnosis of HIV-1/HIV-2 infection, we found the sensitivity and specificity of POC NAT tests to be high in infants and children aged 18 months or less who were exposed to HIV infection.

At what times during infection is SARS-CoV-2 detectable and no longer detectable using RT-PCR-based tests? A systematic review of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) are pivotal to detecting current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and duration of detectable virus indicating potential for infectivity. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) systematic review of longitudinal studies of RT-PCR test results in symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. We searched PubMed, LitCOVID, medRxiv, and COVID-19 Living Evidence databases. We assessed risk of bias using a QUADAS-2 adaptation. Outcomes were the percentage of positive test results by time and the duration of detectable virus, by anatomical sampling sites. RESULTS: Of 5078 studies screened, we included 32 studies with 1023 SARS-CoV-2 infected participants and 1619 test results, from - 6 to 66 days post-symptom onset and hospitalisation. The highest percentage virus detection was from nasopharyngeal sampling between 0 and 4 days post-symptom onset at 89% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83 to 93) dropping to 54% (95% CI 47 to 61) after 10 to 14 days. On average, duration of detectable virus was longer with lower respiratory tract (LRT) sampling than upper respiratory tract (URT). Duration of faecal and respiratory tract virus detection varied greatly within individual participants. In some participants, virus was still detectable at 46 days post-symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: RT-PCR misses detection of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection; early sampling minimises false negative diagnoses. Beyond 10 days post-symptom onset, lower RT or faecal testing may be preferred sampling sites. The included studies are open to substantial risk of bias, so the positivity rates are probably overestimated.

PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies.

Clinical prediction models combine multiple predictors to estimate risk for the presence of a particular condition (diagnostic models) or the occurrence of a certain event in the future (prognostic models). PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool), a tool for assessing the risk of bias (ROB) and applicability of diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies, was developed by a steering group that considered existing ROB tools and reporting guidelines. The tool was informed by a Delphi procedure involving 38 experts and was refined through piloting. PROBAST is organized into the following 4 domains: participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis. These domains contain a total of 20 signaling questions to facilitate structured judgment of ROB, which was defined to occur when shortcomings in study design, conduct, or analysis lead to systematically distorted estimates of model predictive performance. PROBAST enables a focused and transparent approach to assessing the ROB and applicability of studies that develop, validate, or update prediction models for individualized predictions. Although PROBAST was designed for systematic reviews, it can be used more generally in critical appraisal of prediction model studies. Potential users include organizations supporting decision making, researchers and clinicians who are interested in evidence-based medicine or involved in guideline development, journal editors, and manuscript reviewers.

PROBAST: A Tool to Assess Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies: Explanation and Elaboration.

Prediction models in health care use predictors to estimate for an individual the probability that a condition or disease is already present (diagnostic model) or will occur in the future (prognostic model). Publications on prediction models have become more common in recent years, and competing prediction models frequently exist for the same outcome or target population. Health care providers, guideline developers, and policymakers are often unsure which model to use or recommend, and in which persons or settings. Hence, systematic reviews of these studies are increasingly demanded, required, and performed. A key part of a systematic review of prediction models is examination of risk of bias and applicability to the intended population and setting. To help reviewers with this process, the authors developed PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) for studies developing, validating, or updating (for example, extending) prediction models, both diagnostic and prognostic. PROBAST was developed through a consensus process involving a group of experts in the field. It includes 20 signaling questions across 4 domains (participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis). This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale for including each domain and signaling question and guides researchers, reviewers, readers, and guideline developers in how to use them to assess risk of bias and applicability concerns. All concepts are illustrated with published examples across different topics. The latest version of the PROBAST checklist, accompanying documents, and filled-in examples can be downloaded from www.probast.org.

Streamlining staging of lung and colorectal cancer with whole body MRI; study protocols for two multicentre, non-randomised, single-arm, prospective diagnostic accuracy studies (Streamline C and Streamline L).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Rapid and accurate cancer staging following diagnosis underpins patient management, in particular the identification of distant metastatic disease. Current staging guidelines recommend sequential deployment of various imaging platforms such as computerised tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) which can be time and resource intensive and onerous for patients. Recent studies demonstrate that whole body magnetic resonance Imaging (WB-MRI) may stage cancer efficiently in a single visit, with potentially greater accuracy than current staging investigations. The Streamline trials aim to evaluate whether WB-MRI increases per patient detection of metastases in non-small cell lung and colorectal cancer compared to standard staging pathways. METHODS: The Streamline trials are multicentre, non-randomised, single-arm, prospective diagnostic accuracy studies with a novel design to capture patient management decisions during staging pathways. The two trials recruit adult patients with proven or highly suspected new diagnosis of primary colorectal (Streamline C) or non-small cell lung cancer (Streamline L) referred for staging. Patients undergo WB-MRI in addition to standard staging investigations. Strict blinding protocols are enforced for those interpreting the imaging. A first major treatment decision is made by the multi-disciplinary team prior to WB-MRI revelation based on standard staging investigations only, then based on the WB-MRI and any additional tests precipitated by WB-MRI, and finally based on all available test results. The reference standard is derived by a multidisciplinary consensus panel who assess 12 months of follow-up data to adjudicate on the TNM stage at diagnosis. Health psychology assessment of patients' experiences of the cancer staging pathway will be undertaken via interviews and questionnaires. A cost (effectiveness) analysis of WB-MRI compared to standard staging pathways will be performed. DISCUSSION: We describe a novel approach to radiologist and clinician blinding to ascertain the 'true' diagnostic accuracy of differing imaging pathways and discuss our approach to assessing the impact of WB-MRI on clinical decision making in real-time. The Streamline trials will compare WB-MRI and standard imaging pathways in the same patients, thereby informing the most accurate and efficient approach to staging. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Streamline C ISRCTN43958015 (registered 25/7/2012). Streamline L ISRCTN50436483 (registered 31/7/2012).