Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 94
Filtrar
1.
Br J Gen Pract ; 71(706): e347-e355, 2021 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33824161

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patients with myeloma experience substantial delays in their diagnosis, which can adversely affect their prognosis. AIM: To generate a clinical prediction rule to identify primary care patients who are at highest risk of myeloma. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective open cohort study using electronic health records data from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2014. METHOD: Patients from the CPRD were included in the study if they were aged ≥40 years, had two full blood counts within a year, and had no previous diagnosis of myeloma. Cases of myeloma were identified in the following 2 years. Derivation and external validation datasets were created based on geographical region. Prediction equations were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models including patient characteristics, symptoms, and blood test results. Calibration, discrimination, and clinical utility were evaluated in the validation set. RESULTS: Of 1 281 926 eligible patients, 737 (0.06%) were diagnosed with myeloma within 2 years. Independent predictors of myeloma included: older age; male sex; back, chest and rib pain; nosebleeds; low haemoglobin, platelets, and white cell count; and raised mean corpuscular volume, calcium, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. A model including symptoms and full blood count had an area under the curve of 0.84 (95% CI = 0.81 to 0.87) and sensitivity of 62% (95% CI = 55% to 68%) at the highest risk decile. The corresponding statistics for a second model, which also included calcium and inflammatory markers, were an area under the curve of 0.87 (95% CI = 0.84 to 0.90) and sensitivity of 72% (95% CI = 66% to 78%). CONCLUSION: The implementation of these prediction rules would highlight the possibility of myeloma in patients where GPs do not suspect myeloma. Future research should focus on the prospective evaluation of further external validity and the impact on clinical practice.

2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 3: CD013705, 2021 03 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33760236

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID-19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS-2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre-prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays. We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (50%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (45%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 based on a single RT-PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID-19. Antigen tests Forty-eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%). At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self-testing. Rapid molecular assays Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer's instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID-19 diagnostics ('acceptable' sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT-PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice. Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self-testing) are required.


Assuntos
Antígenos Virais/análise , /diagnóstico , Técnicas de Diagnóstico Molecular/métodos , Sistemas Automatizados de Assistência Junto ao Leito , /imunologia , Adulto , Infecções Assintomáticas , Viés , Criança , Estudos de Coortes , Reações Falso-Negativas , Reações Falso-Positivas , Humanos , Técnicas de Diagnóstico Molecular/normas , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Padrões de Referência , Sensibilidade e Especificidade
3.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 3: CD013639, 2021 03 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33724443

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to present diagnostic challenges. Our 2020 edition of this review showed thoracic (chest) imaging to be sensitive and moderately specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this update, we include new relevant studies, and have removed studies with case-control designs, and those not intended to be diagnostic test accuracy studies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 30 September 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19 and that reported estimates of test accuracy or provided data from which we could compute estimates. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain-list. We presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity using paired forest plots, and we summarised pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented the uncertainty of accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 studies with 19,775 participants suspected of having COVID-19, of whom 10,155 (51%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Forty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality each, and four studies evaluated two imaging modalities each. All studies used RT-PCR as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19, with 47 studies using only RT-PCR and four studies using a combination of RT-PCR and other criteria (such as clinical signs, imaging tests, positive contacts, and follow-up phone calls) as the reference standard. Studies were conducted in Europe (33), Asia (13), North America (3) and South America (2); including only adults (26), all ages (21), children only (1), adults over 70 years (1), and unclear (2); in inpatients (2), outpatients (32), and setting unclear (17). Risk of bias was high or unclear in thirty-two (63%) studies with respect to participant selection, 40 (78%) studies with respect to reference standard, 30 (59%) studies with respect to index test, and 24 (47%) studies with respect to participant flow. For chest CT (41 studies, 16,133 participants, 8110 (50%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 25.4% to 97.4%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 87.9% (95% CI 84.6 to 90.6) and the pooled specificity was 80.0% (95% CI 74.9 to 84.3). There was no statistical evidence indicating that reference standard conduct and definition for index test positivity were sources of heterogeneity for CT studies. Nine chest CT studies (2807 participants, 1139 (41%) cases) used the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) scoring system, which has five thresholds to define index test positivity. At a CO-RADS threshold of 5 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 41.5% to 77.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 67.0% (95% CI 56.4 to 76.2); the specificity ranged from 83.5% to 96.2%; and the pooled specificity was 91.3% (95% CI 87.6 to 94.0). At a CO-RADS threshold of 4 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 92.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 83.5% (95% CI 74.4 to 89.7); the specificity ranged from 77.2% to 90.4% and the pooled specificity was 83.6% (95% CI 80.5 to 86.4). For chest X-ray (9 studies, 3694 participants, 2111 (57%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 51.9% to 94.4% and specificity ranged from 40.4% to 88.9%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 80.6% (95% CI 69.1 to 88.6) and the pooled specificity was 71.5% (95% CI 59.8 to 80.8). For ultrasound of the lungs (5 studies, 446 participants, 211 (47%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 68.2% to 96.8% and specificity ranged from 21.3% to 78.9%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 86.4% (95% CI 72.7 to 93.9) and the pooled specificity was 54.6% (95% CI 35.3 to 72.6). Based on an indirect comparison using all included studies, chest CT had a higher specificity than ultrasound. For indirect comparisons of chest CT and chest X-ray, or chest X-ray and ultrasound, the data did not show differences in specificity or sensitivity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Ultrasound is sensitive but not specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for excluding COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should pre-define positive imaging findings, include direct comparisons of the various modalities of interest in the same participant population, and implement improved reporting practices.


Assuntos
/diagnóstico por imagem , Radiografia Torácica , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X , Ultrassonografia , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Viés , Criança , Intervalos de Confiança , Humanos , Pulmão/diagnóstico por imagem , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Radiografia Torácica/normas , Radiografia Torácica/estatística & dados numéricos , Padrões de Referência , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X/normas , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X/estatística & dados numéricos , Ultrassonografia/normas , Ultrassonografia/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto Jovem
4.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD013665, 2021 02 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33620086

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The clinical implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection are highly variable. Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst the infection can cause mild to moderate COVID-19 and COVID-19 pneumonia in others. This can lead to some people requiring intensive care support and, in some cases, to death, especially in older adults. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of smell or taste, and signs such as oxygen saturation are the first and most readily available diagnostic information. Such information could be used to either rule out COVID-19, or select patients for further testing. This is an update of this review, the first version of which published in July 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: For this review iteration we undertook electronic searches up to 15 July 2020 in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included patients with clinically suspected COVID-19, or if they recruited known cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Studies were eligible when they recruited patients presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies in hospitalised patients were only included if symptoms and signs were recorded on admission or at presentation. Studies including patients who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract stage and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 44 studies including 26,884 participants in total. Prevalence of COVID-19 varied from 3% to 71% with a median of 21%. There were three studies from primary care settings (1824 participants), nine studies from outpatient testing centres (10,717 participants), 12 studies performed in hospital outpatient wards (5061 participants), seven studies in hospitalised patients (1048 participants), 10 studies in the emergency department (3173 participants), and three studies in which the setting was not specified (5061 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild from severe COVID-19, so we present the results for all disease severities together. Fifteen studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because inclusion in the studies depended on the applicable testing and referral protocols, which included many of the signs and symptoms under study in this review. This may have especially influenced the sensitivity of those features used in referral protocols, such as fever and cough. Five studies only included participants with pneumonia on imaging, suggesting that this is a highly selected population. In an additional 12 studies, we were unable to assess the risk for selection bias. This makes it very difficult to judge the validity of the diagnostic accuracy of the signs and symptoms from these included studies. The applicability of the results of this review update improved in comparison with the original review. A greater proportion of studies included participants who presented to outpatient settings, which is where the majority of clinical assessments for COVID-19 take place. However, still none of the studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 84 signs and symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. Only cough (25 studies) and fever (7 studies) had a pooled sensitivity of at least 50% but specificities were moderate to low. Cough had a sensitivity of 67.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 59.8% to 74.1%) and specificity of 35.0% (95% CI 28.7% to 41.9%). Fever had a sensitivity of 53.8% (95% CI 35.0% to 71.7%) and a specificity of 67.4% (95% CI 53.3% to 78.9%). The pooled positive likelihood ratio of cough was only 1.04 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.11) and that of fever 1.65 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.93). Anosmia alone (11 studies), ageusia alone (6 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had sensitivities below 50% but specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a pooled sensitivity of 28.0% (95% CI 17.7% to 41.3%) and a specificity of 93.4% (95% CI 88.3% to 96.4%). Ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 24.8% (95% CI 12.4% to 43.5%) and a specificity of 91.4% (95% CI 81.3% to 96.3%). Anosmia or ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 41.0% (95% CI 27.0% to 56.6%) and a specificity of 90.5% (95% CI 81.2% to 95.4%). The pooled positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.25 (95% CI 3.17 to 5.71) and 4.31 (95% CI 3.00 to 6.18) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The pooled positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was only 2.88 (95% CI 2.02 to 4.09). Only two studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining fever and cough with other symptoms. These combinations had a specificity above 80%, but at the cost of very low sensitivity (< 30%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The majority of individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic accuracy, although this should be interpreted in the context of selection bias and heterogeneity between studies. Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out COVID-19. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for COVID-19. The presence of fever or cough, given their high sensitivities, may also be useful to identify people for further testing. Prospective studies in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings, examining combinations of signs and symptoms to evaluate the syndromic presentation of COVID-19, are still urgently needed. Results from such studies could inform subsequent management decisions.


Assuntos
Assistência Ambulatorial , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Avaliação de Sintomas , Ageusia/diagnóstico , Ageusia/etiologia , /etiologia , Artralgia/diagnóstico , Artralgia/etiologia , Viés , /epidemiologia , Tosse/diagnóstico , Tosse/etiologia , Diarreia/diagnóstico , Diarreia/etiologia , Dispneia/diagnóstico , Dispneia/etiologia , Fadiga/diagnóstico , Fadiga/etiologia , Febre/diagnóstico , Febre/etiologia , Cefaleia/diagnóstico , Cefaleia/etiologia , Humanos , Mialgia/diagnóstico , Mialgia/etiologia , Ambulatório Hospitalar/estatística & dados numéricos , Pandemias , Exame Físico , Viés de Seleção , Avaliação de Sintomas/classificação , Avaliação de Sintomas/estatística & dados numéricos
5.
BMC Fam Pract ; 22(1): 9, 2021 Jan 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33413158

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Nearly 40% of parents with children aged 6 to 17 months consult a healthcare professional when their child has a high temperature. Clinical guidelines recommend temperature measurement in these children, but little is known about parents' experiences of and beliefs about temperature measurement. This study aimed to explore parents' concerns and beliefs about temperature measurement in children. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted from May 2017 to June 2018 with 21 parents of children aged 4 months to 5.5 years, who were purposively sampled from the METRIC study (a method comparison study comparing non-contact infrared thermometers to axillary and tympanic thermometers in acutely ill children). Data analysis followed a thematic approach. RESULTS: Parents described the importance of being able to detect fever, in particular high fevers, and how this then influenced their actions. The concept of "accuracy" was valued by parents but the aspects of performance which were felt to reflect accuracy varied. Parents used numerical values of temperature in four main ways: determining precision of the thermometer on repeat measures, detecting a "bad" fever, as an indication to administer antipyretics, or monitoring response to treatment. Family and social networks, the internet, and medical professionals and resources, were all key sources of advice for parents regarding fever, and guiding thermometer choice. CONCLUSIONS: Temperature measurement in children has diagnostic value but can either empower, or cause anxiety and practical challenges for parents. This represents an opportunity for both improved communication between parents and healthcare professionals, and technological development, to support parents to manage febrile illness with greater confidence in the home.

6.
BMJ Glob Health ; 6(1)2021 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33472837

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Early identification of children at risk of severe febrile illness can optimise referral, admission and treatment decisions, particularly in resource-limited settings. We aimed to identify prognostic clinical and laboratory factors that predict progression to severe disease in febrile children presenting from the community. METHODS: We systematically reviewed publications retrieved from MEDLINE, Web of Science and Embase between 31 May 1999 and 30 April 2020, supplemented by hand search of reference lists and consultation with an expert Technical Advisory Panel. Studies evaluating prognostic factors or clinical prediction models in children presenting from the community with febrile illnesses were eligible. The primary outcome was any objective measure of disease severity ascertained within 30 days of enrolment. We calculated unadjusted likelihood ratios (LRs) for comparison of prognostic factors, and compared clinical prediction models using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). Risk of bias and applicability of studies were assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool. RESULTS: Of 5949 articles identified, 18 studies evaluating 200 prognostic factors and 25 clinical prediction models in 24 530 children were included. Heterogeneity between studies precluded formal meta-analysis. Malnutrition (positive LR range 1.56-11.13), hypoxia (2.10-8.11), altered consciousness (1.24-14.02), and markers of acidosis (1.36-7.71) and poor peripheral perfusion (1.78-17.38) were the most common predictors of severe disease. Clinical prediction model performance varied widely (AUROC range 0.49-0.97). Concerns regarding applicability were identified and most studies were at high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies address this important public health question. We identified prognostic factors from a wide range of geographic contexts that can help clinicians assess febrile children at risk of progressing to severe disease. Multicentre studies that include outpatients are required to explore generalisability and develop data-driven tools to support patient prioritisation and triage at the community level. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019140542.

7.
Int J Cancer ; 148(2): 277-284, 2021 01 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32638362

RESUMO

The age-standardised incidence of cervical cancer in Europe varies widely by country (between 3 and 25/100000 women-years) in 2018. Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine coverage is low in countries with the highest incidence and screening performance is heterogeneous among European countries. A broad group of delegates of scientific professional societies and cancer organisations endorse the principles of the WHO call to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem, also in Europe. All European nations should, by 2030, reach at least 90% HPV vaccine coverage among girls by the age of 15 years and also boys, if cost-effective; they should introduce organised population-based HPV-based screening and achieve 70% of screening coverage in the target age group, providing also HPV testing on self-samples for nonscreened or underscreened women; and to manage 90% of screen-positive women. To guide member states, a group of scientific professional societies and cancer organisations engage to assist in the rollout of a series of concerted evidence-based actions. European health authorities are requested to mandate a group of experts to develop the third edition of European Guidelines for Quality Assurance of Cervical Cancer prevention based on integrated HPV vaccination and screening and to monitor the progress towards the elimination goal. The occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic, having interrupted prevention activities temporarily, should not deviate stakeholders from this ambition. In the immediate postepidemic phase, health professionals should focus on high-risk women and adhere to cost-effective policies including self-sampling.


Assuntos
Alphapapillomavirus/imunologia , Infecções por Papillomavirus/imunologia , Vacinas contra Papillomavirus/imunologia , Saúde Pública/métodos , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/prevenção & controle , Adolescente , Adulto , Alphapapillomavirus/fisiologia , /prevenção & controle , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Europa (Continente) , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias , Infecções por Papillomavirus/prevenção & controle , Infecções por Papillomavirus/virologia , Vacinas contra Papillomavirus/administração & dosagem , Saúde Pública/normas , Saúde Pública/estatística & dados numéricos , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/diagnóstico , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/imunologia , Vacinação/métodos , Organização Mundial da Saúde , Adulto Jovem
8.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 11: CD013639, 2020 11 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33242342

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to present diagnostic challenges. Early research showed thoracic (chest) imaging to be sensitive but not specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, this is a rapidly developing field and these findings need to be re-evaluated in the light of new research. This is the first update of this 'living systematic review'. This update focuses on people suspected of having COVID-19 and excludes studies with only confirmed COVID-19 participants. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 22 June 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of all designs that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19, and which reported estimates of test accuracy, or provided data from which estimates could be computed. When studies used a variety of reference standards, we retained the classification of participants as COVID-19 positive or negative as used in the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain-list independently, in duplicate. We categorised included studies into three groups based on classification of index test results: studies that reported specific criteria for index test positivity (group 1); studies that did not report specific criteria, but had the test reader(s) explicitly classify the imaging test result as either COVID-19 positive or negative (group 2); and studies that reported an overview of index test findings, without explicitly classifying the imaging test as either COVID-19 positive or negative (group 3). We presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity using paired forest plots, and summarised in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 studies: 30 were cross-sectional studies with 8491 participants suspected of COVID-19, of which 4575 (54%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19; four were case-control studies with 848 cases and controls in total, of which 464 (55%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest CT was evaluated in 31 studies (8014 participants, 4224 (53%) cases), chest X-ray in three studies (1243 participants, 784 (63%) cases), and ultrasound of the lungs in one study (100 participants, 31 (31%) cases). Twenty-six per cent (9/34) of all studies were available only as preprints. Nineteen studies were conducted in Asia, 10 in Europe, four in North America and one in Australia. Sixteen studies included only adults, 15 studies included both adults and children and one included only children. Two studies did not report the ages of participants. Twenty-four studies included inpatients, four studies included outpatients, while the remaining six studies were conducted in unclear settings. The majority of included studies had a high or unclear risk of bias with respect to participant selection, index test, reference standard, and participant flow. For chest CT in suspected COVID-19 participants (31 studies, 8014 participants, 4224 (53%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 57.4% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 0% to 96.0%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT in suspected COVID-19 participants was 89.9% (95% CI 85.7 to 92.9) and the pooled specificity was 61.1% (95% CI 42.3 to 77.1). Sensitivity analyses showed that when the studies from China were excluded, the studies from other countries demonstrated higher specificity compared to the overall included studies. When studies that did not classify index tests as positive or negative for COVID-19 (group 3) were excluded, the remaining studies (groups 1 and 2) demonstrated higher specificity compared to the overall included studies. Sensitivity analyses limited to cross-sectional studies, or studies where at least two reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests were conducted if the first was negative, did not substantively alter the accuracy estimates. We did not identify publication status as a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray in suspected COVID-19 participants (3 studies, 1243 participants, 784 (63%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 56.9% to 89.0% and specificity from 11.1% to 88.9%. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound of the lungs in suspected COVID-19 participants (1 study, 100 participants, 31 (31%) cases) were 96.8% and 62.3%, respectively. We could not perform a meta-analysis for chest X-ray or ultrasound due to the limited number of included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in suspected patients, meaning that CT may have limited capability in differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. However, we are limited in our confidence in these results due to the poor study quality and the heterogeneity of included studies. Because of limited data, accuracy estimates of chest X-ray and ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of suspected COVID-19 cases should be carefully interpreted. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should pre-define positive imaging findings, include direct comparisons of the various modalities of interest on the same participant population, and implement improved reporting practices. Planned updates of this review will aim to: increase precision around the accuracy estimates for chest CT (ideally with low risk of bias studies); obtain further data to inform accuracy of chest X-rays and ultrasound; and obtain data to further fulfil secondary objectives (e.g. 'threshold' effects, comparing accuracy estimates across different imaging modalities) to inform the utility of imaging along different diagnostic pathways.

9.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 11: CD013787, 2020 11 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33211319

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Specific diagnostic tests to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and resulting COVID-19 disease are not always available and take time to obtain results. Routine laboratory markers such as white blood cell count, measures of anticoagulation, C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin, are used to assess the clinical status of a patient. These laboratory tests may be useful for the triage of people with potential COVID-19 to prioritize them for different levels of treatment, especially in situations where time and resources are limited. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory testing as a triage test to determine if a person has COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: On 4 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included both case-control designs and consecutive series of patients that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory testing as a triage test to determine if a person has COVID-19. The reference standard could be reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) alone; RT-PCR plus clinical expertise or and imaging; repeated RT-PCR several days apart or from different samples; WHO and other case definitions; and any other reference standard used by the study authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from each included study. They also assessed the methodological quality of the studies, using QUADAS-2. We used the 'NLMIXED' procedure in SAS 9.4 for the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) meta-analyses of tests for which we included four or more studies. To facilitate interpretation of results, for each meta-analysis we estimated summary sensitivity at the points on the SROC curve that corresponded to the median and interquartile range boundaries of specificities in the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies in this review, including 14,126 COVID-19 patients and 56,585 non-COVID-19 patients in total. Studies evaluated a total of 67 different laboratory tests. Although we were interested in the diagnotic accuracy of routine tests for COVID-19, the included studies used detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection through RT-PCR as reference standard. There was considerable heterogeneity between tests, threshold values and the settings in which they were applied. For some tests a positive result was defined as a decrease compared to normal vaues, for other tests a positive result was defined as an increase, and for some tests both increase and decrease may have indicated test positivity. None of the studies had either low risk of bias on all domains or low concerns for applicability for all domains. Only three of the tests evaluated had a summary sensitivity and specificity over 50%. These were: increase in interleukin-6, increase in C-reactive protein and lymphocyte count decrease. Blood count Eleven studies evaluated a decrease in white blood cell count, with a median specificity of 93% and a summary sensitivity of 25% (95% CI 8.0% to 27%; very low-certainty evidence). The 15 studies that evaluated an increase in white blood cell count had a lower median specificity and a lower corresponding sensitivity. Four studies evaluated a decrease in neutrophil count. Their median specificity was 93%, corresponding to a summary sensitivity of 10% (95% CI 1.0% to 56%; low-certainty evidence). The 11 studies that evaluated an increase in neutrophil count had a lower median specificity and a lower corresponding sensitivity. The summary sensitivity of an increase in neutrophil percentage (4 studies) was 59% (95% CI 1.0% to 100%) at median specificity (38%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in monocyte count (4 studies) was 13% (95% CI 6.0% to 26%) at median specificity (73%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of a decrease in lymphocyte count (13 studies) was 64% (95% CI 28% to 89%) at median specificity (53%; low-certainty evidence). Four studies that evaluated a decrease in lymphocyte percentage showed a lower median specificity and lower corresponding sensitivity. The summary sensitivity of a decrease in platelets (4 studies) was 19% (95% CI 10% to 32%) at median specificity (88%; low-certainty evidence). Liver function tests The summary sensitivity of an increase in alanine aminotransferase (9 studies) was 12% (95% CI 3% to 34%) at median specificity (92%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in aspartate aminotransferase (7 studies) was 29% (95% CI 17% to 45%) at median specificity (81%) (low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of a decrease in albumin (4 studies) was 21% (95% CI 3% to 67%) at median specificity (66%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in total bilirubin (4 studies) was 12% (95% CI 3.0% to 34%) at median specificity (92%; very low-certainty evidence). Markers of inflammation The summary sensitivity of an increase in CRP (14 studies) was 66% (95% CI 55% to 75%) at median specificity (44%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in procalcitonin (6 studies) was 3% (95% CI 1% to 19%) at median specificity (86%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in IL-6 (four studies) was 73% (95% CI 36% to 93%) at median specificity (58%) (very low-certainty evidence). Other biomarkers The summary sensitivity of an increase in creatine kinase (5 studies) was 11% (95% CI 6% to 19%) at median specificity (94%) (low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in serum creatinine (four studies) was 7% (95% CI 1% to 37%) at median specificity (91%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in lactate dehydrogenase (4 studies) was 25% (95% CI 15% to 38%) at median specificity (72%; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although these tests give an indication about the general health status of patients and some tests may be specific indicators for inflammatory processes, none of the tests we investigated are useful for accurately ruling in or ruling out COVID-19 on their own. Studies were done in specific hospitalized populations, and future studies should consider non-hospital settings to evaluate how these tests would perform in people with milder symptoms.

10.
Health Technol Assess ; 24(53): 1-28, 2020 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33111663

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Current options for temperature measurement in children presenting to primary care include either electronic axillary or infrared tympanic thermometers. Non-contact infrared thermometers could reduce both the distress of the child and the risk of cross-infection. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the use of non-contact thermometers with the use of electronic axillary and infrared tympanic thermometers in children presenting to primary care. DESIGN: Method comparison study with a nested qualitative study. SETTING: Primary care in Oxfordshire. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged ≤ 5 years attending with an acute illness. INTERVENTIONS: Two types of non-contact infrared thermometers [i.e. Thermofocus (Tecnimed, Varese, Italy) and Firhealth (Firhealth, Shenzhen, China)] were compared with an electronic axillary thermometer and an infrared tympanic thermometer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was agreement between the Thermofocus non-contact infrared thermometer and the axillary thermometer. Secondary outcomes included agreement between all other sets of thermometers, diagnostic accuracy for detecting fever, parental and child ratings of acceptability and discomfort, and themes arising from our qualitative interviews with parents. RESULTS: A total of 401 children (203 boys) were recruited, with a median age of 1.6 years (interquartile range 0.79-3.38 years). The readings of the Thermofocus non-contact infrared thermometer differed from those of the axillary thermometer by -0.14 °C (95% confidence interval -0.21 to -0.06 °C) on average with the lower limit of agreement being -1.57 °C (95% confidence interval -1.69 to -1.44 °C) and the upper limit being 1.29 °C (95% confidence interval 1.16 to 1.42 °C). The readings of the Firhealth non-contact infrared thermometer differed from those of the axillary thermometer by -0.16 °C (95% confidence interval -0.23 to -0.09 °C) on average, with the lower limit of agreement being -1.54 °C (95% confidence interval -1.66 to -1.41 °C) and the upper limit being 1.22 °C (95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.34 °C). The difference between the first and second readings of the Thermofocus was -0.04 °C (95% confidence interval -0.07 to -0.01 °C); the lower limit was -0.56 °C (95% confidence interval -0.60 to -0.51 °C) and the upper limit was 0.47 °C (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.52 °C). The difference between the first and second readings of the Firhealth thermometer was 0.01 °C (95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.04 °C); the lower limit was -0.60 °C (95% confidence interval -0.65 to -0.54 °C) and the upper limit was 0.61 °C (95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.67 °C). Sensitivity and specificity for the Thermofocus non-contact infrared thermometer were 66.7% (95% confidence interval 38.4% to 88.2%) and 98.0% (95% confidence interval 96.0% to 99.2%), respectively. For the Firhealth non-contact infrared thermometer, sensitivity was 12.5% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 38.3%) and specificity was 99.4% (95% confidence interval 98.0% to 99.9%). The majority of parents found all methods to be acceptable, although discomfort ratings were highest for the axillary thermometer. The non-contact thermometers required fewer readings than the comparator thermometers. LIMITATIONS: A method comparison study does not compare new methods against a reference standard, which in this case would be central thermometry requiring the placement of a central line, which is not feasible or acceptable in primary care. Electronic axillary and infrared tympanic thermometers have been found to have moderate agreement themselves with central temperature measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The 95% limits of agreement are > 1 °C for both non-contact infrared thermometers compared with electronic axillary and infrared tympanic thermometers, which could affect clinical decision-making. Sensitivity for fever was low to moderate for both non-contact thermometers. FUTURE WORK: Better methods for peripheral temperature measurement that agree well with central thermometry are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15413321. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

11.
Fam Pract ; 2020 Sep 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32975281

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Estimates on the incidence rates of infections are needed to assess the burden of disease in the community. OBJECTIVE: To assess incidence rates of potentially serious infections in patients aged 65 years and over presenting to Flemish general practice from 2000 to 2015, and to describe patient characteristics. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study, based on data provided by the Intego morbidity registry of the KU Leuven, which includes the electronic medical records of 111 general practitioners. Incidence rates were calculated taking person-time at risk into account, and longitudinal trends from 2000 to 2015 were analysed using autoregressive time-series analyses. RESULTS: On average, a person aged 65 years or older has an 8.0% risk of getting a potentially serious infection each year. Acute cystitis was the most often occurring potentially serious infection [39.8/1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval (CI): 39.4-40.2], followed by influenza like illness (ILI, 24.3/1000 person-years; 95% CI: 24.0-24.6) and pneumonia (9.7/1000 person-years; 95% CI: 9.5-9.9). The incidence rates of pneumonia were higher in older age groups and in men, whereas they were markedly lower for ILI at older ages, in both genders. From 2000 to 2015, overall incidence rates decreased significantly for ILI, while they increased in women for pneumonia, acute cystitis and pyelonephritis. Common chronic comorbidities were non-insulin dependent diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, heart failure and chronic renal insufficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Potentially serious infections are quite common in an older patient population presenting to primary care. They are accompanied by several chronic comorbidities, which may differ by infection type.

12.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD013639, 2020 09 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32997361

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of infection by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presents major challenges. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing is used to diagnose a current infection, but its utility as a reference standard is constrained by sampling errors, limited sensitivity (71% to 98%), and dependence on the timing of specimen collection. Chest imaging tests are being used in the diagnosis of COVID-19 disease, or when RT-PCR testing is unavailable. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of chest imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 5 May 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of all designs that produce estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which estimates can be computed. We included two types of cross-sectional designs: a) where all patients suspected of the target condition enter the study through the same route and b) where it is not clear up front who has and who does not have the target condition, or where the patients with the target condition are recruited in a different way or from a different population from the patients without the target condition. When studies used a variety of reference standards, we included all of them. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened studies and extracted data independently, in duplicate. We also assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns independently, in duplicate, using the QUADAS-2 checklist and presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest plots, and summarised in tables. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 84 studies, falling into two categories: studies with participants with confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19 at the time of recruitment (71 studies with 6331 participants) and studies with participants suspected of COVID-19 (13 studies with 1948 participants, including three case-control studies with 549 cases and controls). Chest CT was evaluated in 78 studies (8105 participants), chest X-ray in nine studies (682 COVID-19 cases), and chest ultrasound in two studies (32 COVID-19 cases). All evaluations of chest X-ray and ultrasound were conducted in studies with confirmed diagnoses only. Twenty-five per cent (21/84) of all studies were available only as preprints, 15/71 studies in the confirmed cases group and 6/13 of the studies in the suspected group. Among 71 studies that included confirmed cases, 41 studies had included symptomatic cases only, 25 studies had included cases regardless of their symptoms, five studies had included asymptomatic cases only, three of which included a combination of confirmed and suspected cases. Seventy studies were conducted in Asia, 2 in Europe, 2 in North America and one in South America. Fifty-one studies included inpatients while the remaining 24 studies were conducted in mixed or unclear settings. Risk of bias was high in most studies, mainly due to concerns about selection of participants and applicability. Among the 13 studies that included suspected cases, nine studies were conducted in Asia, and one in Europe. Seven studies included inpatients while the remaining three studies were conducted in mixed or unclear settings. In studies that included confirmed cases the pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 93.1% (95%CI: 90.2 - 95.0 (65 studies, 5759 cases); and for X-ray 82.1% (95%CI: 62.5 to 92.7 (9 studies, 682 cases). Heterogeneity judged by visual assessment of the ROC plots was considerable. Two studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound and both reported zero false negatives (with 10 and 22 participants having undergone ultrasound, respectively). These studies only reported True Positive and False Negative data, therefore it was not possible to pool and derive estimates of specificity. In studies that included suspected cases, the pooled sensitivity of CT was 86.2% (95%CI: 71.9 to 93.8 (13 studies, 2346 participants) and specificity was 18.1% (95%CI: 3.71 to 55.8). Heterogeneity judged by visual assessment of the forest plots was high. Chest CT may give approximately the same proportion of positive results for patients with and without a SARS-CoV-2 infection: the chances of getting a positive CT result are 86% (95% CI: 72 to 94) in patient with a SARS-CoV-2 infection and 82% (95% CI: 44 to 96) in patients without. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The uncertainty resulting from the poor study quality and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results. Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive but not specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in suspected patients, meaning that CT may not be capable of differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. This low specificity could also be the result of the poor sensitivity of the reference standard (RT-PCR), as CT could potentially be more sensitive than RT-PCR in some cases. Because of limited data, accuracy estimates of chest X-ray and ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19 should be carefully interpreted. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should avoid cases-only studies and pre-define positive imaging findings. Planned updates of this review will aim to: increase precision around the accuracy estimates for CT (ideally with low risk of bias studies); obtain further data to inform accuracy of chest X rays and ultrasound; and continue to search for studies that fulfil secondary objectives to inform the utility of imaging along different diagnostic pathways.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Técnicas de Laboratório Clínico/métodos , Infecções por Coronavirus/diagnóstico por imagem , Pneumonia Viral/diagnóstico por imagem , Adulto , Criança , Infecções por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Humanos , Pulmão/diagnóstico por imagem , Pandemias , Radiografia Torácica/estatística & dados numéricos , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X/estatística & dados numéricos , Ultrassonografia/estatística & dados numéricos
13.
Diagn Progn Res ; 4: 12, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32775698

RESUMO

Background: Early recognition and treatment of sepsis is crucial to prevent detrimental outcomes. General practitioners (GPs) are often the first healthcare providers to encounter seriously ill patients. The aim of this study is to assess the value of clinical information and additional tests to develop a clinical prediction rule to support early diagnosis and management of sepsis by GPs. Methods: We will perform a diagnostic study in the setting of out-of-hours home visits in four GP cooperatives in the Netherlands. Acutely ill adult patients suspected of a serious infection will be screened for eligibility by the GP. The following candidate predictors will be prospectively recorded: (1) age, (2) body temperature, (3) systolic blood pressure, (4) heart rate, (5) respiratory rate, (6) peripheral oxygen saturation, (7) mental status, (8) history of rigors, and (9) rate of progression. After clinical assessment by the GP, blood samples will be collected in all patients to measure C-reactive protein, lactate, and procalcitonin. All patients will receive care as usual. The primary outcome is the presence or absence of sepsis within 72 h after inclusion, according to an expert panel. The need for hospital treatment for any indication will be assessed by the expert panel as a secondary outcome. Multivariable logistic regression will be used to design an optimal prediction model first and subsequently derive a simplified clinical prediction rule that enhances feasibility of using the model in daily clinical practice. Bootstrapping will be performed for internal validation of both the optimal model and simplified prediction rule. Performance of both models will be compared to existing clinical prediction rules for sepsis. Discussion: This study will enable us to develop a clinical prediction rule for the recognition of sepsis in a high-risk primary care setting to aid in the decision which patients have to be immediately referred to a hospital and who can be safely treated at home. As clinical signs and blood samples will be obtained prospectively, near-complete data will be available for analyses. External validation will be needed before implementation in routine care and to determine in which pre-hospital settings care can be improved using the prediction rule. Trial registration: The study is registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry (registration number NTR7026).

14.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 8: CD013705, 2020 08 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32845525

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify or rule out current infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current SARS-CoV-2 infection have the potential to allow earlier detection and isolation of confirmed cases compared to laboratory-based diagnostic methods, with the aim of reducing household and community transmission. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection. SEARCH METHODS: On 25 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with suspected current SARS-CoV-2 infection, known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results available within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. One review author independently extracted study characteristics, which were checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently extracted 2x2 contingency table data and assessed risk of bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We present sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each test using paired forest plots. We pooled data using the bivariate hierarchical model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests, with simplifications when few studies were available. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 publications reporting on a total of 18 study cohorts with 3198 unique samples, of which 1775 had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ten studies took place in North America, two in South America, four in Europe, one in China and one was conducted internationally. We identified data for eight commercial tests (four antigen and four molecular) and one in-house antigen test. Five of the studies included were only available as preprints. We did not find any studies at low risk of bias for all quality domains and had concerns about applicability of results across all studies. We judged patient selection to be at high risk of bias in 50% of the studies because of deliberate over-sampling of samples with confirmed COVID-19 infection and unclear in seven out of 18 studies because of poor reporting. Sixteen (89%) studies used only a single, negative RT-PCR to confirm the absence of COVID-19 infection, risking missing infection. There was a lack of information on blinding of index test (n = 11), and around participant exclusions from analyses (n = 10). We did not observe differences in methodological quality between antigen and molecular test evaluations. Antigen tests Sensitivity varied considerably across studies (from 0% to 94%): the average sensitivity was 56.2% (95% CI 29.5 to 79.8%) and average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.1% to 99.9%; based on 8 evaluations in 5 studies on 943 samples). Data for individual antigen tests were limited with no more than two studies for any test. Rapid molecular assays Sensitivity showed less variation compared to antigen tests (from 68% to 100%), average sensitivity was 95.2% (95% CI 86.7% to 98.3%) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.5%) based on 13 evaluations in 11 studies of on 2255 samples. Predicted values based on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people with suspected COVID-19 infection (with a prevalence of 10%) result in 105 positive test results including 10 false positives (positive predictive value 90%), and 895 negative results including 5 false negatives (negative predictive value 99%). Individual tests We calculated pooled results of individual tests for ID NOW (Abbott Laboratories) (5 evaluations) and Xpert Xpress (Cepheid Inc) (6 evaluations). Summary sensitivity for the Xpert Xpress assay (99.4%, 95% CI 98.0% to 99.8%) was 22.6 (95% CI 18.8 to 26.3) percentage points higher than that of ID NOW (76.8%, (95% CI 72.9% to 80.3%), whilst the specificity of Xpert Xpress (96.8%, 95% CI 90.6% to 99.0%) was marginally lower than ID NOW (99.6%, 95% CI 98.4% to 99.9%; a difference of -2.8% (95% CI -6.4 to 0.8)) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies early-stage evaluations of point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, largely based on remnant laboratory samples. The findings currently have limited applicability, as we are uncertain whether tests will perform in the same way in clinical practice, and according to symptoms of COVID-19, duration of symptoms, or in asymptomatic people. Rapid tests have the potential to be used to inform triage of RT-PCR use, allowing earlier detection of those testing positive, but the evidence currently is not strong enough to determine how useful they are in clinical practice. Prospective and comparative evaluations of rapid tests for COVID-19 infection in clinically relevant settings are urgently needed. Studies should recruit consecutive series of eligible participants, including both those presenting for testing due to symptoms and asymptomatic people who may have come into contact with confirmed cases. Studies should clearly describe symptomatic status and document time from symptom onset or time since exposure. Point-of-care tests must be conducted on samples according to manufacturer instructions for use and be conducted at the point of care. Any future research study report should conform to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guideline.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Técnicas de Laboratório Clínico/métodos , Infecções por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Pneumonia Viral/diagnóstico , Sistemas Automatizados de Assistência Junto ao Leito , Antígenos Virais/análise , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Reações Falso-Negativas , Reações Falso-Positivas , Humanos , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Sensibilidade e Especificidade
15.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 7: CD013665, 2020 07 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32633856

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst in others the infection can cause mild to moderate COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 pneumonia, leading some patients to require intensive care support and, in some cases, to death, especially in older adults. Symptoms such as fever or cough, and signs such as oxygen saturation or lung auscultation findings, are the first and most readily available diagnostic information. Such information could be used to either rule out COVID-19 disease, or select patients for further diagnostic testing. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19 disease or COVID-19 pneumonia. SEARCH METHODS: On 27 April 2020, we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the University of Bern living search database, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included patients with suspected COVID-19 disease, or if they recruited known cases with COVID-19 disease and controls without COVID-19. Studies were eligible when they recruited patients presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies including patients who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), clinical expertise, imaging, serology tests and World Health Organization (WHO) or other definitions of COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract stage and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist. Analyses were descriptive, presenting sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in ROC (receiver operating characteristic) space and in dumbbell plots. We did not attempt meta-analysis due to the small number of studies, heterogeneity across studies and the high risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 16 studies including 7706 participants in total. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 5% to 38% with a median of 17%. There were no studies from primary care settings, although we did find seven studies in outpatient clinics (2172 participants), and four studies in the emergency department (1401 participants). We found data on 27 signs and symptoms, which fall into four different categories: systemic, respiratory, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular. No studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms and results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity; only six symptoms had a sensitivity of at least 50% in at least one study: cough, sore throat, fever, myalgia or arthralgia, fatigue, and headache. Of these, fever, myalgia or arthralgia, fatigue, and headache could be considered red flags (defined as having a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5) for COVID-19 as their specificity was above 90%, meaning that they substantially increase the likelihood of COVID-19 disease when present. Seven studies carried a high risk of bias for selection of participants because inclusion in the studies depended on the applicable testing and referral protocols, which included many of the signs and symptoms under study in this review. Five studies only included participants with pneumonia on imaging, suggesting that this is a highly selected population. In an additional four studies, we were unable to assess the risk for selection bias. These factors make it very difficult to determine the diagnostic properties of these signs and symptoms from the included studies. We also had concerns about the applicability of these results, since most studies included participants who were already admitted to hospital or presenting to hospital settings. This makes these findings less applicable to people presenting to primary care, who may have less severe illness and a lower prevalence of COVID-19 disease. None of the studies included any data on children, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We hope that future updates of this review will be able to provide more information about the diagnostic properties of signs and symptoms in different settings and age groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic properties, although this should be interpreted in the context of selection bias and heterogeneity between studies. Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out disease. Prospective studies in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings, examining combinations of signs and symptoms to evaluate the syndromic presentation of COVID-19 disease, are urgently needed. Results from such studies could inform subsequent management decisions such as self-isolation or selecting patients for further diagnostic testing. We also need data on potentially more specific symptoms such as loss of sense of smell. Studies in older adults are especially important.


Assuntos
Assistência Ambulatorial , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Pneumonia Viral/diagnóstico , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Avaliação de Sintomas , Artralgia/diagnóstico , Artralgia/etiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/complicações , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Fadiga/diagnóstico , Fadiga/etiologia , Febre/diagnóstico , Febre/etiologia , Cefaleia/diagnóstico , Humanos , Mialgia/diagnóstico , Mialgia/etiologia , Ambulatório Hospitalar/estatística & dados numéricos , Pandemias , Exame Físico , Pneumonia Viral/complicações , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Viés de Seleção , Avaliação de Sintomas/classificação , Avaliação de Sintomas/estatística & dados numéricos
16.
PLoS One ; 15(7): e0235605, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32628707

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Paediatric consultations form a significant proportion of all consultations in ambulatory care. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) may offer a potential solution to improve clinical outcomes for children by reducing diagnostic uncertainty in acute illness, and streamlining management of chronic diseases. However, their clinical impact in paediatric ambulatory care is unknown. We aimed to describe the clinical impact of all in-vitro diagnostic POCTs on patient outcomes and healthcare processes in paediatric ambulatory care. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science from inception to 29 January 2020 without language restrictions. We included studies of children presenting to ambulatory care settings (general practice, hospital outpatient clinics, or emergency departments, walk-in centres, registered drug shops delivering healthcare) where in-vitro diagnostic POCTs were compared to usual care. We included all quantitative clinical outcome data across all conditions or infection syndromes reporting on the impact of POCTs on clinical care and healthcare processes. Where feasible, we calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) by performing meta-analysis using random effects models. RESULTS: We included 35 studies. Data relating to at least one outcome were available for 89,439 children of whom 45,283 had a POCT across six conditions or infection syndromes: malaria (n = 14); non-specific acute fever 'illness' (n = 7); sore throat (n = 5); acute respiratory tract infections (n = 5); HIV (n = 3); and diabetes (n = 1). Outcomes centred around decision-making such as prescription of medications or hospital referral. Pooled estimates showed that malarial-POCTs (Plasmodium falciparum) better targeted antimalarial treatment by reducing over-treatment by a third compared to usual care (RR 0.67; 95% CI [0.58 to 0.77], n = 36,949). HIV-POCTs improved initiating earlier antiretroviral therapy compared to usual care (RR, 3.11; 95% CI [1.55 to 6.25], n = 912). Across the other four conditions, there was limited evidence for the benefit of POCTs in paediatric ambulatory care except for acute respiratory tract infections (RTI) in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), where POCT C-Reactive Protein (CRP) may reduce immediate antibiotic prescribing by a third (risk difference, -0.29 [-0.47, -0.11], n = 2,747). This difference was shown in randomised controlled trials in LMICs which included guidance on interpretation of POCT-CRP, specific training or employed a diagnostic algorithm prior to POC testing. CONCLUSION: Overall, there is a paucity of evidence for the use of POCTs in paediatric ambulatory care. POCTs help to target prescribing for children with malaria and HIV. There is emerging evidence that POCT-CRP may better target antibiotic prescribing for children with acute RTIs in LMIC, but not in high-income countries. Research is urgently needed to understand where POCTs are likely to improve clinical outcomes in paediatric settings worldwide.


Assuntos
Assistência Ambulatorial/métodos , Pediatria/métodos , Testes Imediatos , Humanos
17.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 6: CD013652, 2020 06 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32584464

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Antivirais/sangue , Betacoronavirus/imunologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Infecções por Coronavirus/imunologia , Pneumonia Viral/diagnóstico , Pneumonia Viral/imunologia , Especificidade de Anticorpos , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Reações Falso-Negativas , Reações Falso-Positivas , Humanos , Imunoglobulina A/sangue , Imunoglobulina G/sangue , Imunoglobulina M/sangue , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Padrões de Referência , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase Via Transcriptase Reversa/normas , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase Via Transcriptase Reversa/estatística & dados numéricos , Viés de Seleção , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Testes Sorológicos/métodos , Testes Sorológicos/normas
18.
Age Ageing ; 2020 Jun 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32584974

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: to summarise all available evidence on the accuracy of clinical features and blood tests for diagnosing serious infections in older patients presenting to ambulatory care. METHODS: systematic review, searching seven databases using a comprehensive search strategy. We included cross-sectional prospective diagnostic studies on (1) clinical features, (2) diagnostic prediction rules based on clinical features alone, (3) blood tests and (4) diagnostic prediction rules combining clinical features and blood tests. Study participants had to be community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years, in whom a physician suspected an infection. We used QUADAS-2 to assess risk of bias. We calculated measures of diagnostic accuracy and present descriptive statistics. RESULTS: out of 13,757 unique articles, only six studies with a moderate to high risk of bias were included. There was substantial clinical heterogeneity across these studies. Clinical features had LR- ≥0.61 and LR+ ≤4.94. Twelve prediction rules using clinical features had LR- ≥0.30 and LR+ ≤2.78. There was evidence on four blood tests of which procalcitonin was the most often investigated: levels <0.37 ng/ml (LR- = 0.20; 95%CI 0.10-0.42) were suitable to rule out sepsis in moderately high prevalence situations. Two diagnostic prediction rules combining clinical features and procalcitonin had LR- of ≤0.12 (95%CI 0.05-0.33) and LR+ of maximum 1.39 (95%CI 1.30-1.49). CONCLUSIONS: we found few studies on the diagnostic accuracy of clinical features and blood tests to detect serious infections in older people presenting to ambulatory care. The risk of bias was mostly moderate to high, leading to substantial uncertainty.

19.
Antibiotics (Basel) ; 9(5)2020 Apr 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32349325

RESUMO

Urinary tract infections in the elderly are common. Treatment with nitrofurantoin in men may not be sufficient if concomitant tissue involvement is present, resulting in treatment failure. The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence of nitrofurantoin failure in the elderly, and to assess the effect of gender and age. A retrospective observational study was conducted using a Dutch general practice medical record database of 21,789 men and 26,622 women aged 65 years or older in 2015. First, nitrofurantoin prescriptions in 2015 were analyzed. Nitrofurantoin failure (subsequent prescription of antibiotic within 30 days) for men, women, and different age categories were compared. The effect of age and gender was assessed using multivariate logistic regression. A total of 3537 patients had a first nitrofurantoin prescription in 2015; 506 men and 3031 women. Overall, 584 patients (17%) experienced nitrofurantoin failure; 135 (27%) men and 449 (15%) women. Male gender (odds ratio (OR) = 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.68-2.61) and age (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03) was associated with higher treatment failure. Our findings indicate that in a substantial number of elderly men, nitrofurantoin might not be the appropriate treatment. Nitrofurantoin, as a first choice in elderly men with urinary tract infections, should be reconsidered.

20.
BMJ Open ; 10(5): e034298, 2020 05 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32414821

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To summarise the literature regarding the use of point-of-care test (POCT) in pharmacies versus control/usual care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis in community pharmacy. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ClinicalTrial.gov and Web of Science databases were searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles were included if they: involved a POCT conducted by a community pharmacist, member of pharmacy staff or local equivalent; measured a clinically relevant outcome for example, clinical parameter monitoring. No clinical condition or language limits were set. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: No patient involvement. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were independently extracted by two members of the review team to capture changes in clinical care that resulted from the use of the POCTs. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Thirteen of the 1584 articles found were included in the meta-analyses. Studies covered four therapeutic areas: targeted anti-malarial therapy (n=3 studies), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in diabetes (n=2 studies), lipid control (n=3 studies) and international normalised ratio (INR) control in patients taking warfarin (n=5 studies). POCT in pharmacies reduced the risk of receiving antimalarial treatment when not clinically indicated (risk ratio 0.34, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.37). Lipid and HbA1c control appeared largely unaffected by pharmacy POCTs, and the impact on INR time-in-therapeutic-range was inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Only 4 out of 13 included studies used a gold-standard randomised controlled trial (RCT) design, limiting our ability to conclusively determine the clinical utility of POCT conducted in pharmacies. Further RCTs are needed, particularly in areas such as upper respiratory tract infections, which have gathered momentum among service commissioners in recent years. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017048578.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...