Comparison of different laboratory tests in the evaluation of hemorrhagic risk of patients using rivaroxaban in the critical care setting: diagnostic accuracy study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Colombini MP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5557535 | biostudies-other | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Neurocysticercosis (NC), caused by the larval stage of Taenia solium, is one of the most common parasitic diseases of the central nervous system. The diagnosis of NC is mostly based on costly brain neuroimaging (computed tomography and/or nuclear magnetic resonance), which is rarely accessible in most affected areas. The most sensitive and specific tools for NC diagnosis are imagery techniques. The identification of specific antibodies and antigens is currently used only to support NC diagnosis due to their limited specificity and sensitivity. This study was performed to compare immunodiagnostic assays (antibody detection by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA] and enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blotting [EITB] and HP10 antigen detection by ELISA) with the detection of parasite DNA by PCR amplification of a repetitive element of the parasite genome in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of 121 radiologically and clinically characterized NC patients. Patients were divided into six groups according to the stage of the parasites and their localization. The CSF cellularity of each patient was also recorded. When all patients were considered, PCR exhibited the highest sensitivity (95.9%) and variable specificity (80% or 100%) depending on the controls used. The sensitivities of antibody detection by ELISA and EITB were not significantly different, and ELISA identified HP10 antigen mostly when vesicular cysticerci were located in the subarachnoideal basal cisterns. These results can help in the selection of different individual assays or combinations of assays to be used in NC diagnosis according to different requirements.
| S-EPMC3020422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Rapid diagnostic test (RDT) of norovirus and rotavirus is commonly used for outbreak screening and patient management. Varying accuracy of the test and cross-reactivity has been reported and could affect the outcome of management. The primary purpose of this study is to provide the accuracy of norovirus and rotavirus rapid diagnostic tests and to analyze the cross-reactivity of both tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Stool samples collected from every acute diarrhea patient aged <15 years old who was admitted at Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, from November 2014 to September 2016 underwent the following test: QuickNaviTM - Norovirus2 for norovirus, VIKIA® Rota-Adeno for rotavirus, and aerobic bacterial culture. Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction was used as a gold standard for virus detection. False-positive results determined cross-reactivity. RESULTS:From 358 stool specimens, the sensitivity of RDTs for norovirus and rotavirus was 27.5% and 44.8%, respectively. The specificity of RDTs for norovirus and rotavirus was 97.7% and 91.6%, respectively. False positive results of RDT for norovirus occurred in 6 samples (1.7%) and 22 samples (6.1%) in RDT for rotavirus. Rotavirus RDT was found to have cross-reactivity with 11 norovirus infection and 3 bacterial infected stools. CONCLUSION:We found that the RDTs for both rotavirus and norovirus have high specificity but low sensitivity. Cross-reactivity was observed in positive rotavirus RDT with half of it being norovirus.
| S-EPMC7533216 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMalaria has a negative effect on the outcome of pregnancy. Pregnant women are at high risk of severe malaria and severe haemolytic anaemia, which contribute 60-70% of foetal and perinatal losses. Peripheral blood smear microscopy under-estimates sequestered placental infections, therefore malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) detecting histidine rich protein-2 antigen (HRP-2) in peripheral blood are a potential alternative.MethodsHRP-2 RDTs accuracy in detecting malaria in pregnancy (MIP >28 weeks gestation) and placental Plasmodium falciparum malaria (after childbirth) were conducted using Giemsa microscopy and placental histopathology respectively as the reference standard. The study was conducted in Mbale Hospital, using the midwives to perform and interpret the RDT results. Discordant results samples were spot checked using PCR techniques.ResultsAmong 433 febrile women tested, RDTs had a sensitivity of 96.8% (95% CI 92-98.8), specificity of 73.5% (95% CI 67.8-78.6), a positive predictive value (PPV) of 68.0% (95% CI 61.4-73.9), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.5% (95% CI 94.0-99.0) in detecting peripheral P. falciparum malaria during pregnancy. At delivery, in non-symptomatic women, RDTs had a 80.9% sensitivity (95% CI 57.4-93.7) and a 87.5% specificity (95%CI 80.9-92.1), PPV of 47.2% (95% CI 30.7-64.2) and NPV of 97.1% (95% CI 92.2-99.1) in detecting placental P. falciparum infections among 173 samples. At delivery, 41% of peripheral infections were detected by microscopy without concurrent placental infection. The combination of RDTs and microscopy improved the sensitivity to 90.5% and the specificity to 98.4% for detecting placental malaria infection (McNemar's X(2)> 3.84). RDTs were not superior to microscopy in detecting placental infection (McNemar's X(2)< 3.84). Presence of malaria in pregnancy and active placental malaria infection were 38% and 12% respectively. Placental infections were associated with poor pregnancy outcome [pre-term, still birth and low birth weight] (aOR = 37.9) and late pregnancy malaria infection (aOR = 20.9). Mosquito net use (aOR 2.1) and increasing parity (aOR 2.7) were associated with lower risk for malaria in pregnancy.ConclusionUse of HRP-2 RDTs to detect malaria in pregnancy in symptomatic women was accurate when performed by midwives. A combination of RDTs and microscopy provided the best means of detecting placental malaria. RDTs were not superior to microscopy in detecting placental infection. With a high sensitivity and specificity, RDTs could be a useful tool for assessing malaria in pregnancy, with further (cost-) effectiveness studies.
| S-EPMC3206496 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Histopathology is the most useful tool for diagnosis of a number of diseases, especially cancer. To be effective, histopathology requires that tissues be fixed prior to processing. Formalin is currently the most common histologic fixative, offering many advantages: it is cheap, readily available, and pathologists are routinely trained to examine tissues fixed in formalin. However, formalin fixation substantially degrades tissue DNA, hindering subsequent use in diagnostics and research. We therefore evaluated three alternative fixatives, TissueTek(®) Xpress(®) Molecular Fixative, modified methacarn, and PAXgene(®), all of which have been proposed as formalin alternatives, to determine their suitability for routine use in a veterinary diagnostic laboratory. This was accomplished by examining the histomorphology of sections produced from fixed tissues as well as the ability to amplify fragments from extracted DNA. Tissues were sampled from two dogs and four cats, fixed for 24-48 h, and processed routinely. While all fixatives produced acceptable histomorphology, formalin had significantly better morphologic characteristics than the other three fixatives. Alternative fixatives generally had better DNA amplification than formalin, although results varied somewhat depending on the tissue examined. While no fixative is yet ready to replace formalin, the alternative fixatives examined may be useful as adjuncts to formalin in diagnostic practices.
| S-EPMC4017885 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceCurrent 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.ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of symptoms, physical signs, and laboratory tests for suspected GCA.Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from November 1940 through April 5, 2020.Study selectionTrials 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 synthesisScreening, full text review, quality assessment, and data extraction by 2 investigators. Diagnostic test meta-analysis used a bivariate model.Main outcome(s) and measuresDiagnostic accuracy parameters, including positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs).ResultsIn 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 relevanceThis 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.
| S-EPMC7432275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDetection of undiagnosed or undertreated ("actionable") atrial fibrillation could increase the use of appropriate oral anticoagulant therapy and reduce the risk of stroke. We sought to compare newer screening technologies with a pulse-check for the detection of atrial fibrillation and to determine whether the detection of actionable atrial fibrillation increases the use of oral anticoagulant agents.MethodsThis prospective multicentre cohort study involved 22 primary care clinics. We recruited participants aged 65 years and older who were attending routine appointments. Each participant underwent 3 methods of screening: a 30-second radial pulse-check; single-lead electrocardiogram; and screening by blood pressure machine with atrial fibrillation detection algorithms. Participants who received a positive result on 1 or more test underwent 12-lead electrocardiogram with or withour 24-hour Holter. Screening tests were compared using the McNemar test. Participants with confirmed atrial fibrillation received follow-up at 90 days.ResultsThe mean age of participants was 73.7 (± 6.9) years, and 53.4% of participants were female. Of 2171 patients, we had data from all 3 screening tests for 2054 patients. Both single-lead electrocardiogram and the blood pressure device showed superior specificity compared with pulse-check (p < 0.001 for each). Fifty-six patients (2.7%) had confirmed atrial fibrillation: 12 patients had newly detected atrial fibrillation (none of the patients were using anticoagulation agents), and 44 patients had previously diagnosed atrial fibrillation (42 patients were receiving anticoagulant therapy, 2 were not). Thus, 14 patients had actionable atrial fibrillation (0.7%). By 90 days, 77% of patients with actionable atrial fibrillation had started anticoagulant therapy.InterpretationNewer screening technologies showed superior specificity compared with a pulse-check. Screening detected undiagnosed or undertreated atrial fibrillation in 0.7% of participants, and 77% started appropriate anticoagulant therapy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT02262351.
| S-EPMC6182120 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Scientists often use a paired comparison of the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves to decide which continuous cancer screening test has the best diagnostic accuracy. In the paired design, all participants are screened with both tests. Participants with suspicious results or signs and symptoms of disease receive the reference standard test. The remaining participants are classified as non-cases, even though some may have occult disease. The standard analysis includes all study participants, which can create bias in the estimates of diagnostic accuracy since not all participants receive disease status verification. We propose a weighted maximum likelihood bias correction method to reduce decision errors.Using Monte Carlo simulations, we assessed the method's ability to reduce decision errors across a range of disease prevalences, correlations between screening test scores, rates of interval cases and proportions of participants who received the reference standard test.The performance of the method depends on characteristics of the screening tests and the disease and on the percentage of participants who receive the reference standard test. In studies with a large amount of bias in the difference in the full areas under the curves, the bias correction method reduces the Type I error rate and improves power for the correct decision. We demonstrate the method with an application to a hypothetical oral cancer screening study.The bias correction method reduces decision errors for some paired screening trials. In order to determine if bias correction is needed for a specific screening trial, we recommend the investigator conduct a simulation study using our software.
| S-EPMC4015908 | biostudies-other
Project description:The Cochrane Collaboration says that the Cochrane handbook for diagnostic test accuracy reviews (DTAR) is currently in development as per the Cochrane Collaboration. This implies that the methodology of systematic reviews (SR) of diagnostic test accuracy is still a matter of debate. At this point, comparison of methodologies for SR in case of interventions as against diagnostics would be helpful to understand DTAR.
| S-EPMC4183058 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Overall accuracy measures of medical tests are often used with unclear interpretations. To develop methods of calculating the overall accuracy of medical tests in the patient population. Algebraic equations based on Bayes' theorem. A new approach is proposed for calculating overall accuracy in the patient population. Examples and applications using published data are presented. The overall accuracy is the proportion of the correct test results. We introduce a clear distinction between the overall accuracy measures of medical tests that are aimed at the detection of a disease in a screening of populations for public health purposes in the general population and the overall accuracy measures of tests aimed at determining a diagnosis in individuals in a clinical setting. We show that the overall detection accuracy measure is obtained in a specific study that explores test accuracy among persons with known diagnoses and may be useful for public health screening tests. It is different from the overall diagnostic accuracy that could be calculated in the clinical setting for the evaluation of medical tests aimed at determining the individual patients' diagnoses. We show that the overall detection accuracy is constant and is not affected by the prevalence of the disease. In contrast, the overall diagnostic accuracy changes and is dependent on the prevalence. Moreover, it ranges according to the ratio between the sensitivity and specificity. Thus, when the sensitivity is greater than the specificity, the overall diagnostic accuracy increases with increasing prevalence, and vice versa, that is, when the sensitivity is lower than the specificity, the overall diagnostic accuracy decreases with increasing prevalence so that another test might be more useful for diagnostic procedures. Our paper suggests a new and more appropriate methodology for estimating the overall diagnostic accuracy of any medical test. This may be important for helping clinicians avoid errors.
| S-EPMC6186004 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Despite recommendation from the World Health Organization that all malaria suspected patients undergo a parasitological confirmation using rapid diagnostic test or light microscopy prior to treatment, health facilities in remote malaria endemic settings sometimes resort to presumptive diagnosis of malaria for clinical management for various reasons. Following observation of this practice, we undertook a cross-sectional study aimed at comparing presumptive diagnosis based on axillary temperature, SD Bioline™ rapid test, and light microscopy as strategies for malaria diagnosis in the coastal region of Mutengene in the South West of Cameroon with the overall goal of supporting improved malaria diagnosis at local levels. Methodology:Venous blood from 320 participants was used to detect the presence of malaria parasite using SD Bioline™ mRDT and Giemsa stained microscopy or spotted on filter paper for PCR amplification of the 18s rRNA gene of Plasmodium sp following standard procedures. The axillary temperature of each participant was also measured. The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values and their confidence intervals were determined for each of the methods with PCR as the reference. The area under the curve was used to estimate accuracy of diagnostic method and compared between test method using the X2 test with P<0.05 considered significant. Results:The overall diagnostic sensitivities of presumptive diagnosis using axillary temperature, light microscopy, and SD Bioline™ were observed to be 74.30% (95%CI: 67.90-80.01), 94.86% (95%CI: 90.99-97.41), and 95.33% (95%CI: 91.57-97.74), respectively, and their respective diagnostic specificities were 53.77% (95%CI: 43.82-63.51), 94.34% (95%CI: 88.09-97.87), and 94.34%(95%CI: 88.09-97.89). SD Bioline™ had a diagnostic sensitivity of 91.80% [95%CI: 81.90-97.28] at a parasitaemia of less than 500 parasites/?l of blood but a sensitivity of 100% for parasite counts above 500 parasites/?l of blood. The predictive values of the positive test were highly comparable between light microscopy (90.09%, [95%CI: 83.61-94.18]) and SD Bioline™ mRDT (90.91%, [95%CI: 84.50-94.83]), P=0.98 with kappa values of 0.898 but lower for presumptive diagnosis (50.89%, [95%CI: 43.72-58.03]), P<0.0001, and kappa value of 0.277. Perfect agreement was observed between SD Bioline™ mRDT and light microscopy (Cohen kappa= 0.924). Conclusions:The study showed that SD Bioline™ was as good as light microscopy in the diagnosis of malaria in remote areas of perennial transmission in South West Cameroon. This study equally revealed the limitations of presumptive diagnosis of malaria (as opposed to the use of RDTs or microscopy). Efforts should be made in such areas to promote parasitological confirmation of malaria using quality assured rapid tests or light microscopy for case management of malaria. The presence of nonnegligible levels of Plasmodium ovale in this study area indicate that treatment guidelines may require revision if same trend is proven in several other areas of same ecology.
| S-EPMC6431520 | biostudies-literature