Diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers to detect acute mesenteric ischaemia in adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute mesenteric ischaemia (AMI) is a disease with different pathophysiological mechanisms, leading to a life-threatening condition that is difficult to diagnose based solely on clinical signs. Despite widely acknowledged need for biomarkers in diagnosis of AMI, a broad systematic review on all studied biomarkers in different types of AMI is currently lacking. The aim of this study was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of all potential biomarkers of AMI studied in humans. METHODS: A systematic literature search in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus was conducted in December 2022. Studies assessing potential biomarkers of AMI in (at least 10) adult patients and reporting their diagnostic accuracy were included. Meta-analyses of biomarkers' sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the study quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. RESULTS: Seventy-five studies including a total of 9914 patients assessed 18 different biomarkers in serum/plasma and one in urine (each reported in at least two studies), which were included in meta-analyses. None of the biomarkers reached a conclusive level for accurate prediction. The best predictive value overall (all studies with any type and stage of AMI pooled) was observed for Ischaemia-modified albumin (2 studies, sensitivity 94.7 and specificity 90.5), interleukin-6 (n = 4, 96.3 and 82.6), procalcitonin (n = 6, 80.1 and 86.7), and intestinal fatty acid-binding protein (I-FABP) measured in serum (n = 16, 73.9 and 90.5) or in urine (n = 4, 87.9 and 78.9). In assessment of transmural mesenteric ischaemia, urinary I-FABP (n = 2, 92.3 and 85.2) and D-dimer (n = 3, 87.6 and 83.6) showed moderate predictive value. Overall risk of bias was high, mainly because of selected study populations and unclear timings of the biomarker measurements after onset of symptoms. Combinations of biomarkers were rarely studied, not allowing meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: None of the studied biomarkers had sufficient sensitivity and specificity to diagnose AMI, although some biomarkers showed moderate predictive accuracy. Future studies should focus on timing of measurements of biomarkers, distinguishing between early stage and transmural necrosis, and between different types of AMI. Additionally, studies on combinations of biomarkers are warranted. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022379341.

12-month prevalence of atopic dermatitis in resource-rich countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

There is a lack of robust prevalence estimates of atopic dermatitis (AD) globally and trends over time due to wide variation of populations and age groups studied, different study methodologies and case definitions used. We sought to characterize 12-month AD prevalence across the life span and change over time in resource-rich countries focusing on population-based studies and using a standardized AD case definition. This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Medline (Ovid), Embase, WOS core collection, Cinahl, and Popline were searched for studies published since inception through August 15, 2016. Studies were synthesized using random effects meta-analysis. Sources of heterogeneity were investigated using subgroup analyses and meta-regression. From 12,530 records identified, 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis with random effects revealed the 12-month period prevalence of 9.2% (95% confidence interval 8.4-10.1%). The prevalence was significantly higher among 0-5-year-old children (16.2%; 95% confidence interval 14.2-18.7%) than in older age groups. Studies using a random sampling strategy yielded lower prevalence estimates than studies relying on other sampling methods. There was no clear time trend in AD prevalence over the period of 1992-2013.

A systematic review of meta-research studies finds substantial methodological heterogeneity in citation analyses to monitor evidence-based research.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to identify the characteristics and application of citation analyses in evaluating the justification, design, and placement of the research results of clinical health studies in the context of earlier similar studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and the Cochrane Methodology Register for meta-research studies. We included meta-research studies assessing whether researchers used earlier similar studies and/or systematic reviews of such studies to inform the justification or design of a new study, whether researchers used systematic reviews to inform the interpretation of new results, and meta-research studies assessing whether redundant studies were published within a specific area. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies were included. How authors of citation analyses define their outcomes appears rather arbitrary, as does how the reference of a landmark review or adherence to reporting guidelines was expected to contribute to the initiation, justification, design, or contextualization of relevant clinical trials. CONCLUSION: Continued and improved efforts to promote evidence-based research are needed, including clearly defined and justified outcomes in meta-research studies to monitor the implementation of an evidence-based approach.