RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection has been well-established as a significant risk factor for several gastrointestinal disorders. The urea breath test (UBT) has emerged as a leading non-invasive method for detecting H. pylori. Despite numerous studies confirming its substantial accuracy, the reliability of UBT results is often compromised by inherent limitations. These findings underscore the need for a rigorous statistical synthesis to clarify and reconcile the diagnostic accuracy of the UBT for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection. AIM: To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of 13C-UBT and 14C-UBT for H. pylori infection in adult patients with dyspepsia. METHODS: We conducted an independent search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases until April 2022. Our search included diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated at least one of the index tests (13C-UBT or 14C-UBT) against a reference standard. We used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess the methodological quality of the studies. We utilized the bivariate random-effects model to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative test likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), as well as the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and their 95% confidence intervals. We conducted subgroup analyses based on urea dosing, time after urea administration, and assessment technique. To investigate a possible threshold effect, we conducted Spearman correlation analysis, and we generated summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves to assess heterogeneity. Finally, we visually inspected a funnel plot and used Egger's test to evaluate publication bias. RESULTS: The titles and abstracts of 4621 studies were screened; 79 articles were retrieved and selected for full-text reading. Finally, 60 studies were included in the diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis. Our analysis demonstrates superior diagnostic accuracy of 13C-UBT over 14C-UBT, indicated by higher sensitivity (96.60% vs 96.15%), specificity (96.93% vs 89.84%), likelihood ratios (LR+ 22.00 vs 10.10; LR- 0.05 vs 0.06), and area under the curve (AUC; 0.979 vs 0.968). Notably, 13C-UBT's DOR (586.47) significantly outperforms 14C-UBT (DOR 226.50), making it the preferred diagnostic tool for dyspeptic individuals with H. pylori infection. Correlation analysis revealed no threshold effect (13C-UBT: r = 0.48; 14C-UBT: r = -0.01), and SROC curves showed consistent accuracy. Both 13C-UBT and 14C-UBT showed high AUC values (13C-UBT 0.979; 14C-UBT 0.968) near 1.00, reinforcing their excellent accuracy and endorsing both as reliable diagnostic tools in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: In summary, our study has demonstrated that 13C-UBT has been found to outperform the 14C-UBT, making it the preferred diagnostic approach. Additionally, our results emphasize the significance of carefully considering urea dosage, assessment timing, and measurement techniques for both tests to enhance diagnostic precision. Nevertheless, it is crucial for researchers and clinicians to evaluate the strengths and limitations of our findings before implementing them in practice.

Assuntos

RESUMO

With the implementation of new dimensional models of personality disorder (PD) in the DSM-5 and ICD-11, several investigators have developed and evaluated the psychometric properties of measures of severity. The diagnostic accuracy of these measures, an important cross-cultural metric that falls between validity and clinical utility, remains unclear. This study aimed to analyze and synthesize the diagnostic performance of the measures designed for both models. For this purpose, searches were carried out using three databases: Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. Studies that presented sensitivity and specificity parameters for cut-off points were selected. There were no restrictions on the age and gender of the participants nor on the reference standard used or the settings. Study quality and synthesis were assessed using QUADAS-2 and MetaDTA software, respectively. Twelve studies were eligible covering self-reported and clinician-rated measures based on the ICD-11 and DSM-5 PD severity models. A total of 66.7% of the studies showed a risk of bias in more than 2 domains. The 10th and 12th studies provided additional metrics, resulting in a total of 21 studies for evidence synthesis. Adequate overall sensitivity and specificity (Se = 0.84, Sp = 0.69) of these measures were obtained; however, the cross-cultural performance of specific cut-off points could not be assessed due to the paucity of studies on the same measure. Evidence suggests that patient selection processes should mainly be improved (avoid case-control design), use adequate reference standards, and avoid only reporting metrics for the optimal cut-off point.

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: A lack of universal definitions for response and remission in pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has hampered the comparability of results across trials. To address this problem, we conducted an individual participant data diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis to evaluate the discriminative ability of the Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) in determining response and remission. We also aimed to generate empirically derived cutoffs on the CY-BOCS for these outcomes. METHOD: A systematic review of PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and CENTRAL identified 5,401 references; 42 randomized controlled clinical trials were considered eligible, and 21 provided data for inclusion (N = 1,234). Scores of ≤2 in the Clinical Global Impressions Improvement and Severity scales were chosen to define response and remission, respectively. A 2-stage, random-effects meta-analysis model was established. The area under the curve (AUC) and the Youden Index were computed to indicate the discriminative ability of the CY-BOCS and to guide for the optimal cutoff, respectively. RESULTS: The CY-BOCS had sufficient discriminative ability to determine response (AUC = 0.89) and remission (AUC = 0.92). The optimal cutoff for response was a ≥35% reduction from baseline to posttreatment (sensitivity = 83.9, 95% CI = 83.7-84.1; specificity = 81.7, 95% CI = 81.5-81.9). The optimal cutoff for remission was a posttreatment raw score of ≤12 (sensitivity = 82.0, 95% CI = 81.8-82.2; specificity = 84.6, 95% CI = 84.4-84.8). CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis identified empirically optimal cutoffs on the CY-BOCS to determine response and remission in pediatric OCD randomized controlled clinical trials. Systematic adoption of standardized operational definitions for response and remission will improve comparability across trials for pediatric OCD.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Background/Aims: Short tests to early detection of the cognitive impairment are necessary in primary care setting, particularly in populations with low educational level. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of Memory Alteration Test (M@T) to discriminate controls, patients with amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (aMCI) and patients with early Alzheimer's Dementia (AD) in a sample of individuals with low level of education. Methods: Cross-sectional study to assess the performance of the M@T (study test), compared to the neuropsychological evaluation (gold standard test) scores in 247 elderly subjects with low education level from Lima-Peru. The cognitive evaluation included three sequential stages: (1) screening (to detect cases with cognitive impairment); (2) nosological diagnosis (to determinate specific disease); and (3) classification (to differentiate disease subtypes). The subjects with negative results for all stages were considered as cognitively normal (controls). The test performance was assessed by means of area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. We calculated validity measures (sensitivity, specificity and correctly classified percentage), the internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient), and concurrent validity (Pearson's ratio coefficient between the M@T and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scores). Results: The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.79 and Pearson's ratio coefficient was 0.79 (p < 0.01). The AUC of M@T to discriminate between early AD and aMCI was 99.60% (sensitivity = 100.00%, specificity = 97.53% and correctly classified = 98.41%) and to discriminate between aMCI and controls was 99.56% (sensitivity = 99.17%, specificity = 91.11%, and correctly classified = 96.99%). Conclusions: The M@T is a short test with a good performance to discriminate controls, aMCI and early AD in individuals with low level of education from urban settings.