Early-onset neonatal sepsis: Still room for improvement in procalcitonin diagnostic accuracy studies

To perform a systematic review assessing accuracy and completeness of diagnostic studies of procalcitonin (PCT) for early-onset neonatal sepsis (EONS) using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) initiative.EONS, diagnosed during the first 3 days of life, remains a common and serious problem. Increased PCT is a potentially useful diagnostic marker of EONS, but reports in the literature are contradictory. There are several possible explanations for the divergent results including the quality of studies reporting the clinical usefulness of PCT in ruling in or ruling out EONS.We systematically reviewed PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases up to October 1, 2014. Studies were eligible for inclusion in our review if they provided measures of PCT accuracy for diagnosing EONS. A data extraction form based on the STARD checklist and adapted for neonates with EONS was used to appraise the quality of the reporting of included studies.We found 18 articles (1998-2014) fulfilling our eligibility criteria which were included in the final analysis. Overall, the results of our analysis showed that the quality of studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of PCT for EONS was suboptimal leaving ample room for improvement. Information on key elements of design, analysis, and interpretation of test accuracy were frequently missing.Authors should be aware of the STARD criteria before starting a study in this field. We welcome stricter adherence to this guideline. Well-reported studies with appropriate designs will provide more reliable information to guide decisions on the use and interpretations of PCT test results in the management of neonates with EONS

Are methodological quality and completeness of reporting associated with citation-based measures of publication impact? A secondary analysis of a systematic review of dementia biomarker studies

Objective: To determine whether methodological and reporting quality are associated with surrogate measures of publication impact in the field of dementia biomarker studies. Methods: We assessed dementia biomarker studies included in a previous systematic review in terms of methodological and reporting quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD), respectively. We extracted additional study and journal-related data from each publication to account for factors shown to be associated with impact in previous research. We explored associations between potential determinants and measures of publication impact in univariable and stepwise multivariable linear regression analyses. Outcome measures: We aimed to collect data on four measures of publication impact: two traditional measures—average number of citations per year and 5-year impact factor of the publishing journal and two alternative measures—the Altmetric Attention Score and counts of electronic downloads. Results: The systematic review included 142 studies. Due to limited data, Altmetric Attention Scores and electronic downloads were excluded from the analysis, leaving traditional metrics as the only analysed outcome measures. We found no relationship between QUADAS and traditional metrics. Citation rates were independently associated with 5-year journal impact factor (β=0.42; p<0.001), journal subject area (β=0.39; p<0.001), number of years since publication (β=-0.29; p<0.001) and STARD (β=0.13; p<0.05). Independent determinants of 5-year journal impact factor were citation rates (β=0.45; p<0.001), statement on conflict of interest (β=0.22; p<0.01) and baseline sample size (β=0.15; p<0.05). Conclusions: Citation rates and 5-year journal impact factor appear to measure different dimensions of impact. Citation rates were weakly associated with completeness of reporting, while neither traditional metric was related to methodological rigour. Our results suggest that high publication usage and journal outlet is not a guarantee of quality and readers should critically appraise all papers regardless of presumed impact

Diagnosis in vascular dementia, applying ‘Cochrane diagnosis rules’ to ‘dementia diagnostic tools’

In this issue of Clinical Science, Biesbroek and colleagues describe recent work on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based cerebral lesion location and its association with cognitive decline. The authors conclude that diagnostic neuroimaging in dementia should shift from whole-brain evaluation to focused quantitative analysis of strategic brain areas. This commentary uses the review of lesion location mapping to discuss broader issues around studies of dementia test strategies. We draw upon work completed by the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group designed to improve design, conduct and reporting of dementia biomarker studies

Pediatric Developmental Screening: Understanding and Selecting Screening Instruments

Based on a review of research on developmental screening instruments, provides a manual for selecting and applying tools for screening for both general and specific problems. Includes an interactive questionnaire that links to the recommended instrument

The quality of reports of medical and public health research from Palestinian institutions:A systematic review

Research reports are the most common way to communicate research findings for target readerships. Complete, accurate and transparent reporting of research studies facilitates dissemination, interpretation, translation and replication of research findings. Inadequate reporting has major consequences for clinicians, researchers, policy makers and ultimately patients. It impairs critical assessment of the validity, relevance and trustworthiness of research and so impedes its use in practice. It also limits the usability of study findings by other researchers conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses and building on or replicating studies. In addition, inadequate reporting is one of the key contributors to avoidable waste in biomedical research. Researchers thus have an ethical obligation to research participants, funding organisations and society as a whole to report their findings in ways that are of use in practice and policy makin

Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research

Objectives The goal of this study is to identify, analyse and classify interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in order to obtain a wide picture of how the problem of enhancing the completeness of reporting of biomedical literature has been tackled so far. Design Scoping review. Search strategy We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and conducted a grey literature search for (1) studies evaluating interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research and (2) other types of references describing interventions that have been performed or suggested but never evaluated. The characteristics and effect of the evaluated interventions were analysed. Moreover, we explored the rationale of the interventions identified and determined the existing gaps in research on the evaluation of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. Results 109 references containing 31 interventions (11 evaluated) were included. These were grouped into five categories: (1) training on the use of reporting guidelines, (2) improving understanding, (3) encouraging adherence, (4) checking adherence and providing feedback, and (5) involvement of experts. Additionally, we identified lack of evaluated interventions (1) on training on the use of reporting guidelines and improving their understanding, (2) at early stages of research and (3) after the final acceptance of the manuscript. Conclusions This scoping review identified a wide range of strategies to improve adherence to reporting guidelines that can be taken by different stakeholders. Additional research is needed to assess the effectiveness of many of these interventionsPeer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Faecal haemoglobin can define risk of colorectal neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer.

Background: Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests measure faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb), which increases in the presence of colorectal neoplasia.Objective: We examined the diagnostic accuracy of faecal immunochemical test (FIT)in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) attending for surveillance colonoscopy as per national guidelines.Methods: A total of 1103 consecutive patients were prospectively invited to complete a FIT before their scheduled colonoscopy in two university hospitals in 2014– 2016. F-Hb was analysed on an OC-Sensor io automated analyser (Eiken Chemical Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) with a limit of detection of 2 µg Hb/g faeces. The diagnostic accuracy of f-Hb for CRC and higher-risk adenoma was examined.Results: A total of 643 patients returned a faecal test. After excluding 4 patients with known inflammatory bowel disease, 639 (57.9%) remained in the study: age range: 25–90 years (median: 64 years, interquartile range (IQR): 55–71): 54.6% male. Of 593 patients who also completed colonoscopy, 41 (6.9%) had advanced neoplasia (4 CRC, 37 higher-risk adenoma). Of the 238 patients (40.1%) who had detectable f-Hb, 31 (13.0%) had advanced neoplasia (2 CRC, 29 higher-risk adenoma) compared with 10 (2.8%) in those with undetectable f-Hb (2 CRC, 8 higher-risk adenoma). Detectable f-Hb gave negative predictive values of 99.4% for CRC and 97.2% for CRC plus higher-risk adenoma.Conclusion: In patients at increased risk of CRC under colonoscopy surveillance, a test measuring faecal haemoglobin can provide an objective estimate of the risk of advanced neoplasia, and could enable tailored scheduling of colonoscopy.</p

Diagnostic Accuracy of Five Serologic Tests for Strongyloides stercoralis Infection

Background:The diagnosis of Strongyloides stercoralis (S. stercoralis) infection is hampered by the suboptimal sensitivity of fecal-based tests. Serological methods are believed to be more sensitive, although assessing their accuracy is difficult because of the lack of sensitivity of a fecal-based reference ("gold") standard.Methods:The sensitivity and specificity of 5 serologic tests for S. stercoralis (in-house IFAT, NIE-ELISA and NIE-LIPS and the commercially available Bordier-ELISA and IVD-ELISA) were assessed on 399 cryopreserved serum samples. Accuracy was measured using fecal results as the primary reference standard, but also using a composite reference standard (based on a combination of tests).Results:According to the latter standard, the most sensitive test was IFAT, with 94.6% sensitivity (91.2-96.9), followed by IVD-ELISA (92.3%, 87.7-96.9). The most specific test was NIE-LIPS, with specificity 99.6% (98.9-100), followed by IVD-ELISA (97.4%, 95.5-99.3). NIE-LIPS did not cross-react with any of the specimens from subjects with other parasitic infections. NIE-LIPS and the two commercial ELISAs approach 100% specificity at a cut off level that maintains ≥70% sensitivity.Conclusions:NIE-LIPS is the most accurate serologic test for the diagnosis of S. stercoralis infection. IFAT and each of the ELISA tests are sufficiently accurate, above a given cut off, for diagnosis, prevalence studies and inclusion in clinical trials.Fil: Bisoffi, Zeno. Sacro Cuore Hospital; ItaliaFil: Buonfrate, Dora. Sacro Cuore Hospital; ItaliaFil: Sequi, Marco. Istituto Di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri; ItaliaFil: Mejia, Rojelio. National Institute Of Allergy And Infectious Diseases; Estados UnidosFil: Cimino, Rubén Oscar. Universidad Nacional de Salta. Sede Regional Orán. Instituto de Investigación de Enfermedades Tropicales; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Krolewiecki, Alejandro Javier. Universidad Nacional de Salta. Sede Regional Orán. Instituto de Investigación de Enfermedades Tropicales; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Albonico, Marco. Sacro Cuore Hospital; ItaliaFil: Gobbo, Maria. Sacro Cuore Hospital; ItaliaFil: Bonafini, Stefania. Sacro Cuore Hospital; ItaliaFil: Angheben, Andrea. Sacro Cuore Hospital; ItaliaFil: Requena-Mendez, Ana. Universidad de Barcelona; EspañaFil: Muñoz, José. Universidad de Barcelona; EspañaFil: Nutman, Thomas B.. National Institute Of Allergy And Infectious Diseases; Estados Unido