Dataset Information

Diagnostic Accuracy of Symptoms, Physical Signs, and Laboratory Tests for Giant Cell Arteritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Current clinical guidelines recommend selecting diagnostic tests for giant cell arteritis (GCA) based on pretest probability that the disease is present, but how pretest probability should be estimated remains unclear.

Objective

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of symptoms, physical signs, and laboratory tests for suspected GCA.

Data sources

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from November 1940 through April 5, 2020.

Study selection

Trials and observational studies describing patients with suspected GCA, using an appropriate reference standard for GCA (temporal artery biopsy, imaging test, or clinical diagnosis), and with available data for at least 1 symptom, physical sign, or laboratory test.

Data extraction and synthesis

Screening, full text review, quality assessment, and data extraction by 2 investigators. Diagnostic test meta-analysis used a bivariate model.

Main outcome(s) and measures

Diagnostic accuracy parameters, including positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs).

Results

In 68 unique studies (14 037 unique patients with suspected GCA; of 7798 patients with sex reported, 5193 were women [66.6%]), findings associated with a diagnosis of GCA included limb claudication (positive LR, 6.01; 95% CI, 1.38-26.16), jaw claudication (positive LR, 4.90; 95% CI, 3.74-6.41), temporal artery thickening (positive LR, 4.70; 95% CI, 2.65-8.33), temporal artery loss of pulse (positive LR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.49-4.23), platelet count of greater than 400 × 103/μL (positive LR, 3.75; 95% CI, 2.12-6.64), temporal tenderness (positive LR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.14-8.65), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate greater than 100 mm/h (positive LR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.43-6.78). Findings that were associated with absence of GCA included the absence of erythrocyte sedimentation rate of greater than 40 mm/h (negative LR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.08-0.44), absence of C-reactive protein level of 2.5 mg/dL or more (negative LR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.59), and absence of age over 70 years (negative LR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.86).

Conclusions and relevance

This study identifies the clinical and laboratory features that are most informative for a diagnosis of GCA, although no single feature was strong enough to confirm or refute the diagnosis if taken alone. Combinations of these symptoms might help direct further investigation, such as vascular imaging, temporal artery biopsy, or seeking evaluation for alternative diagnoses.

SUBMITTER: van der Geest KSM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7432275 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPassive diagnosis of human African trypanosomiasis (HAT) at the health facility level is a major component of HAT control in Guinea. We examined which clinical signs and symptoms are associated with HAT, and assessed the performance of selected clinical presentations, of rapid diagnostic tests (RDT), and of reference laboratory tests on dried blood spots (DBS) for diagnosing HAT in Guinea.MethodThe study took place in 14 health facilities in Guinea, where 2345 clinical suspects were tested with RDTs (HAT Sero-K-Set, rHAT Sero-Strip, and SD Bioline HAT). Seropositives underwent parasitological examination (reference test) to confirm HAT and their DBS were tested in indirect enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA)/Trypanosoma brucei gambiense, trypanolysis, Loopamp Trypanosoma brucei Detection kit (LAMP) and m18S quantitative PCR (qPCR). Multivariable regression analysis assessed association of clinical presentation with HAT. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of key clinical presentations, of the RDTs and of the DBS tests for HAT diagnosis were determined.ResultsThe HAT prevalence, as confirmed parasitologically, was 2.0% (48/2345, 95% CI: 1.5-2.7%). Odds ratios (OR) for HAT were increased for participants with swollen lymph nodes (OR = 96.7, 95% CI: 20.7-452.0), important weight loss (OR = 20.4, 95% CI: 7.05-58.9), severe itching (OR = 45.9, 95% CI: 7.3-288.7) or motor disorders (OR = 4.5, 95% CI: 0.89-22.5). Presence of at least one of these clinical presentations was 75.6% (95% CI: 73.8-77.4%) specific and 97.9% (95% CI: 88.9-99.9%) sensitive for HAT. HAT Sero-K-Set, rHAT Sero-Strip, and SD Bioline HAT were respectively 97.5% (95% CI: 96.8-98.1%), 99.4% (95% CI: 99.0-99.7%) and 97.9% (95% CI: 97.2-98.4%) specific, and 100% (95% CI: 92.5-100.0%), 59.6% (95% CI: 44.3-73.3%) and 93.8% (95% CI: 82.8-98.7%) sensitive for HAT. The RDT's positive and negative predictive values ranged from 45.2-66.7% and 99.2-100% respectively. All DBS tests had specificities ≥ 92.9%. While LAMP and m18S qPCR sensitivities were below 50%, trypanolysis and ELISA/T.b. gambiense had sensitivities of 85.3% (95% CI: 68.9-95.0%) and 67.6% (95% CI: 49.5-82.6%).ConclusionsPresence of swollen lymph nodes, important weight loss, severe itching or motor disorders are simple but accurate clinical criteria for HAT referral in HAT endemic areas in Guinea. Diagnostic performances of HAT Sero-K-Set and SD Bioline HAT are sufficient for referring positives to microscopy. Trypanolysis on DBS may discriminate HAT patients from false RDT positives. Trial registration The trial was registered under NCT03356665 in clinicaltrials.gov (November 29, 2017, retrospectively registered https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03356665 ).

Project description:Clinical relevanceThis study identifies key signs and symptoms of acute conjunctivitis, that when combined with a point-of-care test, can improve clinician accuracy of diagnosing adenoviral conjunctivitis.BackgroundAdenoviral conjunctivitis is a common ocular infection with the potential for high economic impact due to widespread outbreaks and subsequent furloughs from work and school. In this report, we describe clinical signs and participant-reported symptoms that most accurately identify polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed adenoviral conjunctivitis.MethodsAdults with 'red eye' symptoms of four days or less were enrolled. Participants rated 10 ocular symptoms from 0 (not bothersome) to 10 (very bothersome), and indicated the presence or absence of systemic flu-like symptoms. Clinicians determined the presence or absence of swollen lymph nodes and rated the severity of eight ocular signs using a 5-point scale. An immunoassay targeting adenovirus antigen was utilised for the point-of-care test, and conjunctival swab samples were obtained for subsequent adenovirus detection by PCR analyses. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify symptoms and signs associated with PCR-confirmed adenoviral conjunctivitis. The diagnostic accuracy of these clinical findings, and the potential benefit of incorporating point-of-care test results, was assessed by calculating areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC).ResultsClinician-rated bulbar conjunctival redness, participant-rated eyelid swelling and overall ocular discomfort had the best predictive value in the multivariate logistic regression model with an AUC of 0.83. The addition of the point-of-care test results to these three clinical sign/symptom scores improved diagnostic accuracy, increasing the AUC to 0.94.ConclusionsConjunctival redness severity and participant-reported eyelid swelling and overall discomfort, along with adenoviral point-of-care test results, were highly predictive in identifying individuals with PCR-confirmed adenoviral conjunctivitis. Improved diagnostic accuracy by clinicians at the initial presenting visit could prevent unnecessary work furloughs and facilitate earlier treatment decisions.

Project description:Identifying a child with pneumonia in the large group of children with acute respiratory tract infections can be challenging for primary care physicians. Knowledge on the diagnostic value of specific signs and symptoms may guide future decision rules and guidelines for clinicians. We aimed to identify and systematically review available evidence for the diagnostic value of signs, symptoms, and additional tests to diagnose pneumonia in children in an ambulatory setting in developed countries. We conducted a systematic review, searching in the electronic databases of PubMed and Embase. Quality assessment of studies was done using the QUADAS-2 criteria. After data extraction from selected studies, we calculated and summarized test characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values) of all available signs, symptoms, additional laboratory tests, and chest ultrasonography. The original search yielded 4665 records, of which 17 articles were eligible for analysis: 12 studies on signs and symptoms, 4 on additional laboratory tests, and 6 on ultrasonography. All included studies were performed in a secondary care setting. Risk of bias was present in the majority of studies in the domain of patient selection. Prevalence of pneumonia varied from 3.4% to 71.7%. The diagnostic value of the available 27 individual signs and symptoms to identify pneumonia was low. In a low prevalence setting, (4 studies, pneumonia prevalence <10%) clinically ill appearance of the child and oxygen saturation <94% can aid a physician. In a high prevalence setting (10 studies, pneumonia >10%), additional diagnostic tests such as oxygen saturation, C-reactive protein, and white blood cell count are more promising. Chest ultrasonography showed high diagnostic value in settings with higher prevalence of pneumonia. Single signs and symptoms from medical history and physical examination or individual additional diagnostic tests are insufficient to diagnose pneumonia in ambulant children. Very few diagnostic studies are conducted in settings with low prevalence of pneumonia. Future research in low prevalence settings should focus on the diagnostic value of the combination of clinical features and additional testing possibly using meta-analysis of individual data.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.Results5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).ConclusionHigher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179452.