Body image dissatisfaction in patients with inflammatory bowel disease:a systematic review protocol

Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a debilitating chronic disease characterised by inflammation and ulceration of the gastrointestinal tract. It is associated with a range of debilitating symptoms and reduced quality of life. People living with IBD may also be at risk of body image dissatisfaction (BID). BID is a distorted and negative view of the physical self, which in turn can adversely affect mental health and quality of life. To date, there have been no systematic reviews of the evidence on BID in IBD patients. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to clarify the evidence base on BID in *IBD patients including (i) the tools used to measure BID, (ii) the prevalence and severity of BID, (iii) the risk factors associated with BID and (iv) the relationship between BID and quality of life. Methods Bibliographic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL) will be searched using a sensitive search strategy aiming to identify any quantitative study reporting on body image in the context of IBD. This will be supplemented by searches of ongoing trials registers and checking of reference lists. Studies will be assessed for eligibility using predetermined selection criteria for each question. Data will be extracted using a predefined data extraction form, and risk of bias (quality) of included studies will be assessed based on checklists appropriate to the study designs identified. Key methodological steps will be undertaken in duplicate to minimise bias and error. Synthesis will be undertaken separately for the different systematic review sub-questions. Given the anticipated heterogeneity of evidence on each question, it is likely that synthesis will be mostly narrative. Discussion To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review to collate the existing evidence on BID in IBD patients. Understanding the impact of BID, its relationship with quality of life, and which patients may be at greater risk, may ultimately lead to the development of interventions to prevent or treat BID and to better patient care. Any gaps in the identified evidence will help to inform the research agenda in this area. Systematic review registration PROSPERO: (CRD42018060999)

Predicting repeated self-harm or suicide in adolescents and young adults using risk assessment scales/tools:a systematic review protocol

Abstract Background Self-harm and suicide have been identified as serious public health problems in children, adolescents, and young people across the world. Suicide is a major cause of mortality in this population and is commonly preceded by self-harm. Both suicide and self-harm are difficult to predict, and several risk scales and tools are in use for this purpose. Currently, there is only a small amount of evidence available regarding their predictive ability in clinical practice, and no consensus as to which is the most suitable for particular populations or settings. The aim of this review is to evaluate the ability of risk scales to predict future episodes of suicide or self-harm in adolescents and young adults presenting to clinical services with attempted suicide or an episode of self-harm. Methods A comprehensive search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) from inception will be conducted to identify studies that look at the ability of risk scales to predict suicide or future episodes of self-harm in adolescents and young adults presenting to clinical services with attempted suicide or an episode of self-harm. Two authors will independently carry out key methodological steps such as study screening and selection and data extraction. Quality assessment will be carried out using a checklist developed from the QUIPS and QUADAS-2 tools. Data will be grouped by tool and a narrative synthesis undertaken. For each tool, meta-analysis will be undertaken for ability to predict suicide or repeat self-harm where clinical and methodological homogeneity exists. Discussion This systematic review will be the first to explore the use of assessment scales/tools in an adolescent population and will help to inform current practice regarding scales/tools with higher predictive ability. There is currently no evidence specifically for this population and a clear need with a high prevalence of self-harm and suicide in adolescents. Additionally, this review will help guide future research into suicide and self-harm prediction and prevention. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD4201705868

Rapid, point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection

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 (37%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (37%) 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

Instrument-based tests for quantifying aqueous humour protein levels in uveitis: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND Inflammation in anterior uveitis is characterised by breakdown of the blood-ocular barrier, which allows leakage of blood constituents of higher molecular weight into the aqueous humour. In routine clinical care, increase in aqueous protein levels can be observed at the slit lamp as 'flare' and the severity can be graded using various clinical grading systems, of which the Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) grading system is most commonly used. Alternative instrument-based technologies are available, which can detect aqueous protein levels in an objective and quantifiable way. This review will identify instruments capable of measuring anterior chamber inflammation in this way, their level of reliability, and how well the measurements correlate with clinical grading and/or actual aqueous protein concentration. METHODS Standard systematic review methodology will be used to identify, select and extract data from studies that report the use of any instrument-based technology in the assessment of aqueous protein levels. Searches will be conducted through bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library), clinical trial registries and the grey literature. No restrictions will be placed on language or year of publication. The outcomes of interest are the level of correlation between identified instrument-based test measurements, clinical grading and/or actual aqueous protein concentration, as well as the reliability of each index test identified. Study quality assessment will be based on QUADAS2. Correlation and reliability outcomes will be pooled and meta-analysed if appropriate. DISCUSSION The assessment of inflammation in anterior chamber protein levels currently relies on crude and subjective clinical examination. The findings of this review will identify non-invasive technologies which show good correlation with actual protein concentration, which could be used in routine clinical practice for objective monitoring of AC inflammation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42017084167. Study screening stage has just been completed

Noninvasive Instrument-based Tests for Detecting and Measuring Vitreous Inflammation in Uveitis: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE This systematic review aims to identify instrument-based tests for quantifying vitreous inflammation in uveitis, report the test reliability and the level of correlation with clinician grading. METHODS Studies describing instrument-based tests for detecting vitreous inflammation were identified by searching bibliographic databases and trials registers. Test reliability measures and level of correlation with clinician vitreous haze grading are extracted. RESULTS Twelve studies describing ultrasound, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and retinal photography for detecting vitreous inflammation were included: Ultrasound was used for detection of disease features, whereas OCT and retinal photography provided quantifiable measurements. Correlation with clinician grading for OCT was 0.53-0.60 (three studies) and for retinal photography was 0.51 (1 study). Both instruments showed high inter- and intra-observer reliability (>0.70 intraclass correlation and Cohen's kappa), where reported in four studies. CONCLUSION Retinal photography and OCT are able to detect and measure vitreous inflammation. Both techniques are reliable, automatable, and warrant further evaluation

Non-invasive Instrument-Based Tests for Quantifying Anterior Chamber Flare in Uveitis: A Systematic Review.

: Anterior chamber (AC) flare is a key sign for anterior uveitis. New instrument-based techniques for measuring AC flare can offer automation and objectivity. This review aims to identify objective instrument-based measures for AC flare.: In this systematic review, we identified studies reporting correlation between instrument-based tests versus clinician AC flare grading, and/or aqueous protein concentration, as well as test reliability.: Four index tests were identified in 11 studies: laser-flare photometry (LFP), optical coherence tomography, ocular flare analysis meter (OFAM) and the double-pass technique. The correlation between LFP and clinician grading was 0.40-0.93 and 0.87-0.94 for LFP and protein concentration. The double-pass technique showed no correlation with clinician grading and insufficient information was available for OFAM.: LFP shows moderate to strong correlation with clinician grading and aqueous protein concentration. LFP could be a superior reference test compared to clinician AC flare grading for validating new index tests