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.

Blood tests in primary care: A qualitative study of communication and decision-making between doctors and patients.

OBJECTIVE: Blood tests are commonly used in primary care as a tool to aid diagnosis, and to offer reassurance and validation for patients. If doctors and patients do not have a shared understanding of the reasons for testing and the meaning of results, these aims may not be fulfilled. Shared decision-making is widely advocated; yet, most research focusses on treatment decisions rather than diagnostic decisions. The aim of this study was to explore communication and decision-making around diagnostic blood tests in primary care. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were undertaken with patients and clinicians in UK primary care. Patients were interviewed at the time of blood testing, with a follow-up interview after they received test results. Interviews with clinicians who requested the tests provided paired data to compare clinicians' and patients' expectations, experiences and understandings of tests. Interviews were analysed thematically using inductive and deductive coding. RESULTS: A total of 80 interviews with 28 patients and 19 doctors were completed. We identified a mismatch in expectations and understanding of tests, which led to downstream consequences including frustration, anxiety and uncertainty for patients. There was no evidence of shared decision-making in consultations preceding the decision to test. Doctors adopted a paternalistic approach, believing that they were protecting patients from anxiety. CONCLUSION: Patients were not able to develop informed preferences and did not perceive that choice is possible in decisions about testing, because they did not have sufficient information and a shared understanding of tests. A lack of shared understanding at the point of decision-making led to downstream consequences when test results did not fulfil patients' expectations. Although shared decision-making is recommended as best practice, it does not reflect the reality of doctors' and patients' accounts of testing; a broader model of shared understanding seems to be more relevant to the complexity of primary care diagnosis. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A patient and public involvement group comprising five participants with lived experience of blood testing in primary care met regularly during the study. They contributed to the development of the research objectives, planning recruitment methods, reviewing patient information leaflets and topic guides and also contributed to discussion of emerging themes at an early stage in the analysis process.

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.

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.

Symptomatic and quality-of-life outcomes after treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer: a systematic review.

To conduct a systematic review of the risks of short-term outcomes after major treatments for clinically localised prostate cancer. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched from 2004 to January 2013. Study arms that included ≥100 men with localised prostate cancer in receipt of surgery, radiotherapy or active surveillance and reported symptomatic and quality-of-life (QoL) data from 6 to 60 months after treatment were eligible. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. In all, 64 studies (80 treatment cohorts) were included. Most were single treatment cohorts from the USA or Europe. Radiotherapy was the most common treatment (40 cohorts, including 31 brachytherapy cohorts) followed by prostatectomy (39 cohorts), with only one active surveillance cohort. Most frequently measured symptoms were urinary, followed by sexual, and bowel; QoL was assessed in only 17 cohorts. Most studies used validated measures, although poor data reporting and differences between studies meant that it was not possible to pool data. Data on the precise impact of short-term symptomatic and QoL outcomes after treatment for localised prostate cancer are of insufficient quality for clear guidance to men about the risks to these aspects of their lives. It is important that future studies focus on collecting core outcomes through validated measures and comply with reporting guidelines, so that clear and accurate information can be derived for men considering screening or treatment for prostate cancer.

Cannabinoids for Medical Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Cannabis and cannabinoid drugs are widely used to treat disease or alleviate symptoms, but their efficacy for specific indications is not clear. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the benefits and adverse events (AEs) of cannabinoids. DATA SOURCES: Twenty-eight databases from inception to April 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the following indications: nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, appetite stimulation in HIV/AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity due to multiple sclerosis or paraplegia, depression, anxiety disorder, sleep disorder, psychosis, glaucoma, or Tourette syndrome. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All review stages were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. Where possible, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patient-relevant/disease-specific outcomes, activities of daily living, quality of life, global impression of change, and AEs. RESULTS: A total of 79 trials (6462 participants) were included; 4 were judged at low risk of bias. Most trials showed improvement in symptoms associated with cannabinoids but these associations did not reach statistical significance in all trials. Compared with placebo, cannabinoids were associated with a greater average number of patients showing a complete nausea and vomiting response (47% vs 20%; odds ratio [OR], 3.82 [95% CI, 1.55-9.42]; 3 trials), reduction in pain (37% vs 31%; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.99-2.00]; 8 trials), a greater average reduction in numerical rating scale pain assessment (on a 0-10-point scale; weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.46 [95% CI, -0.80 to -0.11]; 6 trials), and average reduction in the Ashworth spasticity scale (WMD, -0.36 [95% CI, -0.69 to -0.05]; 7 trials). There was an increased risk of short-term AEs with cannabinoids, including serious AEs. Common AEs included dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, fatigue, somnolence, euphoria, vomiting, disorientation, drowsiness, confusion, loss of balance, and hallucination. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome. Cannabinoids were associated with an increased risk of short-term AEs.

Protection by BCG vaccine against tuberculosis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials assessing BCG vaccine protection against tuberculosis have widely varying results, for reasons that are not well understood. METHODS: We examined associations of trial setting and design with BCG efficacy against pulmonary and miliary or meningeal tuberculosis by conducting a systematic review, meta-analyses, and meta-regression. RESULTS: We identified 18 trials reporting pulmonary tuberculosis and 6 reporting miliary or meningeal tuberculosis. Univariable meta-regression indicated efficacy against pulmonary tuberculosis varied according to 3 characteristics. Protection appeared greatest in children stringently tuberculin tested, to try to exclude prior infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis or sensitization to environmental mycobacteria (rate ratio [RR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], .18-.37), or infants (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, .29-.58). Protection was weaker in children not stringently tested (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, .35-1.01) and older individuals stringently or not stringently tested (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, .59-1.31 and RR, 0.81; 95% CI, .55-1.22, respectively). Protection was higher in trials further from the equator where environmental mycobacteria are less and with lower risk of diagnostic detection bias. These associations were attenuated in a multivariable model, but each had an independent effect. There was no evidence that efficacy was associated with BCG strain. Protection against meningeal and miliary tuberculosis was also high in infants (RR, 0.1; 95% CI, .01-.77) and children stringently tuberculin tested (RR, 0.08; 95% CI, .03-.25). CONCLUSIONS: Absence of prior M. tuberculosis infection or sensitization with environmental mycobacteria is associated with higher efficacy of BCG against pulmonary tuberculosis and possibly against miliary and meningeal tuberculosis. Evaluations of new tuberculosis vaccines should account for the possibility that prior infection may mask or block their effects.

Patient safety in actioning and communicating blood test results in primary care: a UK wide audit using the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT).

BACKGROUND: Errors associated with failures in filing, actioning and communicating blood test results can lead to delayed and missed diagnoses and patient harm. This study aimed to audit how blood tests in primary care are filed, actioned and communicated in primary care, to identify areas for patient safety improvements. METHODS: UK primary care clinicians were recruited through the Primary Care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT). PACT members audited 50 recent sets of blood tests from their practice and retrospectively extracted data on blood test result coding, actioning and communication. PACT members received a practice report, showing their own results, benchmarked against other participating practices. RESULTS: PACT members from 57 general practices across all four UK nations collected data on 2572 patients who had blood tests in April 2021. In 89.9% (n=2311) they agreed with the initial clinician's actioning of blood tests; 10.1% disagreed, either partially (7.1%) or fully (3.0%).In 44% of patients (n=1132) an action (eg, 'make an appointment') was specified by the filing clinician. This action was carried out in 89.7% (n=1015/1132) of cases; in 6.8% (n=77) the action was not carried out, in 3.5% (n=40) it was unclear. In the 117 cases where the test result had not been actioned 38% (n=45) were felt to be at low risk of harm, 1.7% (n=2) were at high risk of harm, 0.85% (n=1) came to harm.Overall, in 47% (n=1210) of patients there was no evidence in the electronic health records that results had been communicated. Out of 1176 patients with one or more abnormal results there was no evidence of test communication in 30.6% (n=360). There were large variations between practices in rates of actioning and communicating tests. CONCLUSION: This research demonstrates variation in the way blood test results are actioned and communicated, with important patient safety implications.

Cost-Effectiveness of Routine Monitoring of Long-Term Conditions in Primary Care: Informing Decision Modelling with a Systematic Review in Hypertension, Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Long-term conditions (LTCs) are major public health problems with a considerable health-related and economic burden. Modelling is key in assessing costs and benefits of different disease management strategies, including routine monitoring, in the conditions of hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to identify published model-based cost-effectiveness studies of routine laboratory testing strategies in these LTCs to inform a model evaluating the cost effectiveness of testing strategies in the UK. METHODS: We searched the Medline and Embase databases from inception to July 2023; the National Institute for Health and Care Institute (NICE) website was also searched. Studies were included if they were model-based economic evaluations, evaluated testing strategies, assessed regular testing, and considered adults aged >16 years. Studies identified were summarised by testing strategies, model type, structure, inputs, assessment of uncertainty, and conclusions drawn. RESULTS: Five studies were included in the review, i.e. Markov (n = 3) and microsimulation (n = 2) models. Models were applied within T2DM (n = 2), hypertension (n = 1), T2DM/hypertension (n = 1) and CKD (n = 1). Comorbidity between all three LTCs was modelled to varying extents. All studies used a lifetime horizon, except for a 10-year horizon T2DM model, and all used quality-adjusted life-years as the effectiveness outcome, except a TD2M model that used glycaemic control. No studies explicitly provided a rationale for their selected modelling approach. UK models were available for diabetes and CKD, but these compared only a limited set of routine monitoring tests and frequencies. CONCLUSIONS: There were few studies comparing routine testing strategies in the UK, indicating a need to develop a novel model in all three LTCs. Justification for the modelling technique of the identified studies was lacking. Markov and microsimulation models, with and without comorbidities, were used; however, the findings of this review can provide data sources and inform modelling approaches for evaluating the cost effectiveness of testing strategies in all three LTCs.

Risk of bias assessments in individual participant data meta-analyses of test accuracy and prediction models: a review shows improvements are needed.

OBJECTIVES: Risk of bias assessments are important in meta-analyses of both aggregate and individual participant data (IPD). There is limited evidence on whether and how risk of bias of included studies or datasets in IPD meta-analyses (IPDMAs) is assessed. We review how risk of bias is currently assessed, reported, and incorporated in IPDMAs of test accuracy and clinical prediction model studies and provide recommendations for improvement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched PubMed (January 2018-May 2020) to identify IPDMAs of test accuracy and prediction models, then elicited whether each IPDMA assessed risk of bias of included studies and, if so, how assessments were reported and subsequently incorporated into the IPDMAs. RESULTS: Forty-nine IPDMAs were included. Nineteen of 27 (70%) test accuracy IPDMAs assessed risk of bias, compared to 5 of 22 (23%) prediction model IPDMAs. Seventeen of 19 (89%) test accuracy IPDMAs used Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), but no tool was used consistently among prediction model IPDMAs. Of IPDMAs assessing risk of bias, 7 (37%) test accuracy IPDMAs and 1 (20%) prediction model IPDMA provided details on the information sources (e.g., the original manuscript, IPD, primary investigators) used to inform judgments, and 4 (21%) test accuracy IPDMAs and 1 (20%) prediction model IPDMA provided information or whether assessments were done before or after obtaining the IPD of the included studies or datasets. Of all included IPDMAs, only seven test accuracy IPDMAs (26%) and one prediction model IPDMA (5%) incorporated risk of bias assessments into their meta-analyses. For future IPDMA projects, we provide guidance on how to adapt tools such as Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (for prediction models) and QUADAS-2 (for test accuracy) to assess risk of bias of included primary studies and their IPD. CONCLUSION: Risk of bias assessments and their reporting need to be improved in IPDMAs of test accuracy and, especially, prediction model studies. Using recommended tools, both before and after IPD are obtained, will address this.

Variation in laboratory testing for patients with long-term conditions: a longitudinal cohort study in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: Use of laboratory testing has increased in the UK over the past few decades, with considerable geographical variation. AIM: To evaluate what laboratory tests are used to monitor people with hypertension, type 2 (T2) diabetes, or chronic kidney disease (CKD) and assess variation in test use in UK primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: Longitudinal cohort study of people registered with UK general practices between June 2013 and May 2018 and previously diagnosed with hypertension, T2 diabetes, or CKD. METHOD: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) primary care data linked to ethnic group and deprivation was used to examine testing rates over time, by GP practice, age, sex, ethnic group, and socioeconomic deprivation, with age-sex standardisation. RESULTS: Nearly 1 million patients were included, and more than 27 million tests. The most ordered tests were for renal function (1463 per 1000 person-years), liver function (1063 per 1000 person-years), and full blood count (FBC; 996 per 1000 person-years). There was evidence of undertesting (compared with current guidelines) for HbA1c and albumin:creatinine ratio (ACR) or microalbumin, and potential overtesting of lipids, FBC, liver function, and thyroid function. Some GP practices had up to 27 times higher testing rates than others (HbA1c testing among patients with CKD). CONCLUSION: Testing rates are no longer increasing, but they are not always within the guidelines for monitoring long-term conditions (LTCs). There was considerable variation by GP practice, indicating uncertainty over the most appropriate testing frequencies for different conditions. Standardising the monitoring of LTCs based on the latest evidence would provide greater consistency of access to monitoring tests.

Exploration of reasons for primary care testing (the Why Test study): a UK-wide audit using the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive.

BACKGROUND: Rates of blood testing have increased over the past two decades. Reasons for testing cannot easily be extracted from electronic health record databases. AIM: To explore who requests blood tests and why, and what the outcomes of testing are in UK primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective audit of electronic health records in general practices in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland was undertaken. METHOD: Fifty-seven clinicians from the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT) each reviewed the electronic health records of 50 patients who had blood tests in April 2021. Anonymised data were extracted including patient characteristics, who requested the tests, reasons for testing, test results, and outcomes of testing. RESULTS: Data were collected from 2572 patients across 57 GP practices. The commonest reasons for testing in primary care were investigation of symptoms (43.2%), monitoring of existing disease (30.1%), monitoring of existing medications (10.1%), and follow up of previous abnormalities (6.8%); patient requested testing was rare in this study (1.5%). Abnormal and borderline results were common, with 26.6% of patients having completely normal test results. Around one-quarter of tests were thought to be partially or fully unnecessary when reviewed retrospectively by a clinical colleague. Overall, 6.2% of tests in primary care led to a new diagnosis or confirmation of a diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The utilisation of a national collaborative model (PACT) has enabled a unique exploration of the rationale and outcomes of blood testing in primary care, highlighting areas for future research and optimisation.

QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.

'I guess I'll wait to hear'- communication of blood test results in primary care a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Rates of blood testing in primary care are rising. Communicating blood test results generates significant workload for patients, GPs, and practice staff. AIM: To explore GPs' and patients' experience of systems of blood test communication. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interviews with patients and GPs in UK primary care in both urban and rural practices in the West of England. METHOD: A total of 28 patients and 19 GPs from six practices were recruited, with a range of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Patients were interviewed at two time points: a) at or soon after their blood test and b) after they had received their test results. The GPs who requested the tests were also interviewed (they could complete a maximum of two interviews about different patients). Eighty qualitative interviews were undertaken; 54 patient interviews and 26 GP interviews. RESULTS: Methods of test result communication varied between doctors and were based on habits, unwritten heuristics, and personal preferences rather than protocols. Doctors expected patients to know how to access their test results. In contrast, patients were often uncertain and used guesswork to decide when and how to access their tests. Patients and doctors generally assumed that the other party would make contact, with potential implications for patient safety. Text messaging and online methods of communication have benefits, but were perceived by some patients as 'flippant' or 'confusing'. Delays and difficulties obtaining and interpreting test results can lead to anxiety and frustration for patients. CONCLUSION: Current systems of test result communication are complex and confusing, and mostly based on habits and routines rather than clear protocols. This has important implications for patient-centred care and patient safety.

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

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

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

BACKGROUND: Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by ingesting gluten. It affects approximately 1% of the UK population, but only one in three people is thought to have a diagnosis. Untreated coeliac disease may lead to malnutrition, anaemia, osteoporosis and lymphoma. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to define at-risk groups and determine the cost-effectiveness of active case-finding strategies in primary care. DESIGN: (1) Systematic review of the accuracy of potential diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease. (2) Routine data analysis to develop prediction models for identification of people who may benefit from testing for coeliac disease. (3) Systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for coeliac disease. (4) Systematic review of the accuracy of genetic tests for coeliac disease (literature search conducted in April 2021). (5) Online survey to identify diagnostic thresholds for testing, starting treatment and referral for biopsy. (6) Economic modelling to identify the cost-effectiveness of different active case-finding strategies, informed by the findings from previous objectives. DATA SOURCES: For the first systematic review, the following databases were searched from 1997 to April 2021: MEDLINE® (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase® (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Cochrane Library, Web of Science™ (Clarivate™, Philadelphia, PA, USA), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( WHO ICTRP ) and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For the second systematic review, the following databases were searched from January 1990 to August 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews ( KSR ) Evidence, WHO ICTRP and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For prediction model development, Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and a subcohort of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children were used; for estimates for the economic models, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum was used. REVIEW METHODS: For review 1, cohort and case-control studies reporting on a diagnostic indicator in a population with and a population without coeliac disease were eligible. For review 2, diagnostic cohort studies including patients presenting with coeliac disease symptoms who were tested with serological tests for coeliac disease and underwent a duodenal biopsy as reference standard were eligible. In both reviews, risk of bias was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 tool. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were fitted, in which binomial likelihoods for the numbers of true positives and true negatives were assumed. RESULTS: People with dermatitis herpetiformis, a family history of coeliac disease, migraine, anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis or chronic liver disease are 1.5-2 times more likely than the general population to have coeliac disease; individual gastrointestinal symptoms were not useful for identifying coeliac disease. For children, women and men, prediction models included 24, 24 and 21 indicators of coeliac disease, respectively. The models showed good discrimination between patients with and patients without coeliac disease, but performed less well when externally validated. Serological tests were found to have good diagnostic accuracy for coeliac disease. Immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase had the highest sensitivity and endomysial antibody the highest specificity. There was little improvement when tests were used in combination. Survey respondents (n = 472) wanted to be 66% certain of the diagnosis from a blood test before starting a gluten-free diet if symptomatic, and 90% certain if asymptomatic. Cost-effectiveness analyses found that, among adults, and using serological testing alone, immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase was most cost-effective at a 1% pre-test probability (equivalent to population screening). Strategies using immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody plus human leucocyte antigen or human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability had similar cost-effectiveness results, which were also similar to the cost-effectiveness results of immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase at a 1% pre-test probability. The most practical alternative for implementation within the NHS is likely to be a combination of human leucocyte antigen and immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing among those with a pre-test probability above 1.5%. Among children, the most cost-effective strategy was a 10% pre-test probability with human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase, but there was uncertainty around the most cost-effective pre-test probability. There was substantial uncertainty in economic model results, which means that there would be great value in conducting further research. LIMITATIONS: The interpretation of meta-analyses was limited by the substantial heterogeneity between the included studies, and most included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. The main limitations of the prediction models were that we were restricted to diagnostic indicators that were recorded by general practitioners and that, because coeliac disease is underdiagnosed, it is also under-reported in health-care data. The cost-effectiveness model is a simplification of coeliac disease and modelled an average cohort rather than individuals. Evidence was weak on the probability of routine coeliac disease diagnosis, the accuracy of serological and genetic tests and the utility of a gluten-free diet. CONCLUSIONS: Population screening with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase (1% pre-test probability) and of immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody followed by human leucocyte antigen testing or human leucocyte antigen testing followed by immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability appear to have similar cost-effectiveness results. As decisions to implement population screening cannot be made based on our economic analysis alone, and given the practical challenges of identifying patients with higher pre-test probabilities, we recommend that human leucocyte antigen combined with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing should be considered for adults with at least a 1.5% pre-test probability of coeliac disease, equivalent to having at least one predictor. A more targeted strategy of 10% pre-test probability is recommended for children (e.g. children with anaemia). FUTURE WORK: Future work should consider whether or not population-based screening for coeliac disease could meet the UK National Screening Committee criteria and whether or not it necessitates a long-term randomised controlled trial of screening strategies. Large prospective cohort studies in which all participants receive accurate tests for coeliac disease are needed. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019115506 and CRD42020170766. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Around 1 in 100 people in the UK has coeliac disease. It develops when the immune system attacks the lining of the gut after eating gluten. It is thought that only one in three people with coeliac disease is currently diagnosed. Without treatment, people with coeliac disease are at an increased risk of anaemia, osteoporosis and cancer. Treatment is a lifelong gluten-free diet. Diagnosing coeliac disease is difficult. Some people have minimal or non-specific symptoms, such as pain, indigestion or bloating, so knowing who to test is tricky. WHAT DID WE DO?: We wanted to establish who should be tested for coeliac disease, what tests should be used and whether or not invasive testing (a gut biopsy) is necessary for everyone. We looked at existing studies and data from general practices, and conducted an online survey, and brought everything together in an economic (cost) analysis. WHAT DID WE FIND?: Using individual symptoms is not helpful to identify people who may have coeliac disease. People with coeliac disease are more likely to have a combination of symptoms. People with anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis, thyroid disorders, immunoglobulin A deficiency, Down syndrome, Turner syndrome or a family history of coeliac disease are more likely to have coeliac disease and should be offered tests. Common blood tests for coeliac disease are very accurate, particularly when used in combination with genetic testing. Blood tests alone can be used for diagnosis for some people. Others will need a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. Whether or not this is needed depends on their risk of coeliac disease: whether or not they have symptoms and whether or not they have a condition that puts them at higher risk. Shared decision-making is important for individuals considering an invasive test, depending on how certain they want to be about their diagnosis before starting a gluten-free diet.

Systematic review: accuracy of anti-citrullinated Peptide antibodies for diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Early recognition and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis is important to prevent irreversible joint damage. Anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPA) have been suggested for early diagnosis. PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of ACPA and rheumatoid factor in diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis in patients with early symptoms of the disease. DATA SOURCES: 10 medical databases from inception to September 2009, with no language or publication restrictions, and references of included studies. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers screened searches. Full articles were assessed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer to identify studies that reported 2 x 2 data on ACPA for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (by 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria). DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted data on patient characteristics, ACPA details, and 2 x 2 data and assessed study quality by using the QUADAS tool. A second reviewer checked extractions. DATA SYNTHESIS: 151 studies were included, with considerable heterogeneity in sensitivity (range, 12% to 93%) and specificity (range, 63% to 100%). In cohort studies that investigated second-generation anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP2) in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (<2 years), summary sensitivity and specificity were 57% (95% CI, 51% to 63%) and 96% (CI, 93% to 97%), respectively. Case-control and cross-sectional studies and studies of patients with established rheumatoid arthritis all overestimated sensitivity. Anti-CCP2 had greater specificity than rheumatoid factor (96% vs. 86%), with similar sensitivity. Evidence was insufficient to ascertain whether the combination of anti-CCP2 and rheumatoid factor provides additional benefit over anti-CCP2 alone. LIMITATIONS: Most studies used a diagnostic case-control design, which overestimated sensitivity. Items relating to study quality were rarely reported. Publication bias could not be assessed. CONCLUSION: Anti-CCP2 should be included in the work-up of patients with early symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis.

Agreement was moderate between data-based and opinion-based assessments of biases affecting randomized trials within meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Randomized trials included in meta-analyses are often affected by bias caused by methodological flaws or limitations, but the degree of bias is unknown. Two proposed methods adjust the trial results for bias using empirical evidence from published meta-epidemiological studies or expert opinion. METHODS: We investigated agreement between data-based and opinion-based approaches to assessing bias in each of four domains: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and incomplete outcome data. From each sampled meta-analysis, a pair of trials with the highest and lowest empirical model-based bias estimates was selected. Independent assessors were asked which trial within each pair was judged more biased on the basis of detailed trial design summaries. RESULTS: Assessors judged trials to be equally biased in 68% of pairs evaluated. When assessors judged one trial as more biased, the proportion of judgments agreeing with the model-based ranking was highest for allocation concealment (79%) and blinding (79%) and lower for sequence generation (59%) and incomplete outcome data (56%). CONCLUSION: Most trial pairs found to be discrepant empirically were judged to be equally biased by assessors. We found moderate agreement between opinion and data-based evidence in pairs where assessors ranked one trial as more biased.

Graphical presentation of diagnostic information.

BACKGROUND: Graphical displays of results allow researchers to summarise and communicate the key findings of their study. Diagnostic information should be presented in an easily interpretable way, which conveys both test characteristics (diagnostic accuracy) and the potential for use in clinical practice (predictive value). METHODS: We discuss the types of graphical display commonly encountered in primary diagnostic accuracy studies and systematic reviews of such studies, and systematically review the use of graphical displays in recent diagnostic primary studies and systematic reviews. RESULTS: We identified 57 primary studies and 49 systematic reviews. Fifty-six percent of primary studies and 53% of systematic reviews used graphical displays to present results. Dot-plot or box-and- whisker plots were the most commonly used graph in primary studies and were included in 22 (39%) studies. ROC plots were the most common type of plot included in systematic reviews and were included in 22 (45%) reviews. One primary study and five systematic reviews included a probability-modifying plot. CONCLUSION: Graphical displays are currently underused in primary diagnostic accuracy studies and systematic reviews of such studies. Diagnostic accuracy studies need to include multiple types of graphic in order to provide both a detailed overview of the results (diagnostic accuracy) and to communicate information that can be used to inform clinical practice (predictive value). Work is required to improve graphical displays, to better communicate the utility of a test in clinical practice and the implications of test results for individual patients.