Evaluating PET-CT in the detection and management of recurrent cervical cancer: Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy and subjective elicitation

Background: Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is recommended to triage women for exenterative surgery and surveillance after treatment for advanced cervical cancer. Objective: To evaluate diagnostic accuracy of additional whole body PET-CT compared with CT/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone in women with suspected recurrent/persistent cervical cancer and in asymptomatic women as surveillance. Design: Systematic reviews. Subjective elicitation to supplement diagnostic information. Search strategy/Selection criteria/Data collection and analysis: Searches of electronic databases were performed to June 2013. Studies in women with suspected recurrent/persistent cervical cancer and in asymptomatic women undergoing follow up with sufficient numeric data were included. We calculated sensitivity, specificity and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Meta-analyses employed a bivariate model that included a random-effects term for between-study variations (CT studies) and univariate random effects meta-analyses (PET-CT studies) for sensitivity and specificity separately. Subjective elicitation: Prevalence of recurrence and the accuracy of imaging elicited using the allocation of points technique. Coherence of elicited subjective probabilities with estimates in the literature examined. Results: We identified 15 relevant studies; none directly compared additional PET-CT with MRI or CT separately. Most CT and MRI studies used older protocols and the majority did not distinguish between asymptomatic and symptomatic women. Meta-analysis of nine PET-CT studies in mostly symptomatic women showed sensitivity of 94.8 (95% CI 91.2-96.9), and specificity of 86.9% (95% CI 82.2-90.5). The summary estimate of the sensitivity of CT for detection of recurrence was 89.64% (95% CI 81.59-94.41) and specificity was 76% (95% CI 43.68-92.82). Meta-analysis for MRI test accuracy studies was not possible because of clinical heterogeneity. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI in pelvic recurrence varied between 82 and 100% and between 78 and 100%, respectively. Formal statistical comparisons of the accuracy of index tests were not possible. Subjective elicitation provided estimates comparable to the literature. Subjective estimates of the increase in accuracy from the addition of PET-CT were less than elicited increases required to justify the use in PET-CT for surveillance. Conclusion: Evidence to support additional PET-CT is scarce, of average quality and does not distinguish between application for surveillance and diagnosis. Guidelines recommending PET-CT in recurrent cervical cancer need to be reconsidered in the light of the existing evidence base

Positron emission tomography/computerised tomography imaging in detecting and managing recurrent cervical cancer: systematic review of evidence, elicitation of subjective probabilities and economic modelling.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2013. This work was produced by Meads et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising.Cancer of the uterine cervix is a common cause of mortality in women. After initial treatment women may be symptom free, but the cancer may recur within a few years. It is uncertain whether it is more clinically effective to survey asymptomatic women for signs of recurrence or to await symptoms or signs before using imaging.National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programm

Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19 A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence

Background: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Purpose: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020178187) Data Sources: 21 standard, World Health Organization–specific and COVID-19–specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. Study Selection: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. Data Extraction: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). Data Synthesis: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. Limitation: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. Conclusion: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers

What do we know about tocolytic effectiveness and how do we use this information in guidelines? A comparison of evidence grading

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Evidence summaries of tocolytic effectiveness assign quality levels based on a single dimension: the study design. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system takes into account several domains, including limitations of the study design and ranking the importance of outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the quality of evidence according to GRADE with the quality as described by existing guidelines. SEARCH STRATEGY: A practitioner survey to rank the importance of outcomes and a systematic review were conducted. For the systematic review, we searched Medline, Embase, and DARE databases from inception to December 2010 using the terms 'tocolytics' and 'threatened preterm labour', without any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria for the review were randomised controlled trials comparing tocolytics with either placebo or betamimetics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review and survey teams worked independently. Evidence ratings according to GRADE were performed. MAIN RESULTS: The majority of the survey respondents thought that it was important to use tocolytics to buy the time needed for steroids to promote fetal lung maturation and to allow in utero transfer. Nearly 80% of 'high' ratings in guidelines were downgraded as a result of deficiencies identified by GRADE. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We propose a move away from the use of evidence rating systems reliant solely on study design, as they have a propensity towards strong recommendations when the underlying evidence is weak