Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Evidence synthesis to inform model-based cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests: a methodological systematic review of health technology assessments

Background: Evaluations of diagnostic tests are challenging because of the indirect nature of their impact on patient outcomes. Model-based health economic evaluations of tests allow different types of evidence from various sources to be incorporated and enable cost-effectiveness estimates to be made beyond the duration of available study data. To parameterize a health-economic model fully, all the ways a test impacts on patient health must be quantified, including but not limited to diagnostic test accuracy. Methods: We assessed all UK NIHR HTA reports published May 2009-July 2015. Reports were included if they evaluated a diagnostic test, included a model-based health economic evaluation and included a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy. From each eligible report we extracted information on the following topics: 1) what evidence aside from test accuracy was searched for and synthesised, 2) which methods were used to synthesise test accuracy evidence and how did the results inform the economic model, 3) how/whether threshold effects were explored, 4) how the potential dependency between multiple tests in a pathway was accounted for, and 5) for evaluations of tests targeted at the primary care setting, how evidence from differing healthcare settings was incorporated. Results: The bivariate or HSROC model was implemented in 20/22 reports that met all inclusion criteria. Test accuracy data for health economic modelling was obtained from meta-analyses completely in four reports, partially in fourteen reports and not at all in four reports. Only 2/7 reports that used a quantitative test gave clear threshold recommendations. All 22 reports explored the effect of uncertainty in accuracy parameters but most of those that used multiple tests did not allow for dependence between test results. 7/22 tests were potentially suitable for primary care but the majority found limited evidence on test accuracy in primary care settings. Conclusions: The uptake of appropriate meta-analysis methods for synthesising evidence on diagnostic test accuracy in UK NIHR HTAs has improved in recent years. Future research should focus on other evidence requirements for cost-effectiveness assessment, threshold effects for quantitative tests and the impact of multiple diagnostic tests

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Increasing frailty is associated with higher prevalence and reduced recognition of delirium in older hospitalised inpatients: results of a multi-centre study

Purpose: Delirium is a neuropsychiatric disorder delineated by an acute change in cognition, attention, and consciousness. It is common, particularly in older adults, but poorly recognised. Frailty is the accumulation of deficits conferring an increased risk of adverse outcomes. We set out to determine how severity of frailty, as measured using the CFS, affected delirium rates, and recognition in hospitalised older people in the United Kingdom. Methods: Adults over 65 years were included in an observational multi-centre audit across UK hospitals, two prospective rounds, and one retrospective note review. Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), delirium status, and 30-day outcomes were recorded. Results: The overall prevalence of delirium was 16.3% (483). Patients with delirium were more frail than patients without delirium (median CFS 6 vs 4). The risk of delirium was greater with increasing frailty [OR 2.9 (1.8–4.6) in CFS 4 vs 1–3; OR 12.4 (6.2–24.5) in CFS 8 vs 1–3]. Higher CFS was associated with reduced recognition of delirium (OR of 0.7 (0.3–1.9) in CFS 4 compared to 0.2 (0.1–0.7) in CFS 8). These risks were both independent of age and dementia. Conclusion: We have demonstrated an incremental increase in risk of delirium with increasing frailty. This has important clinical implications, suggesting that frailty may provide a more nuanced measure of vulnerability to delirium and poor outcomes. However, the most frail patients are least likely to have their delirium diagnosed and there is a significant lack of research into the underlying pathophysiology of both of these common geriatric syndromes

Retrospective delirium ascertainment from case notes: a retrospective cohort study

Objectives This study sets out to ascertain if recognition of delirium impacts on patient outcomes. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Unscheduled admissions to acute care trust/secondary care UK hospitals. Participants Six hundred and fifty-six older adults aged ≥65 years admitted on 14 September 2018. Measurements Delirium was ascertained retrospectively from case notes using medical notes. Documented delirium was classified as recognised delirium and retrospectively ascertained delirium was classified as unrecognised delirium. Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary outcome measure: inpatient mortality. Secondary outcome measures: length of stay, discharge destination. Results Delirium was present in 21.1% (132/626) of patients at any point during admission. The presence of delirium was associated with increased mortality (HR 2.65, CI 1.40 to 5.01). Recognition of delirium did not significantly impact on outcomes. Conclusions Delirium is associated with adverse outcomes in hospitalised older adults. However, there is insufficient evidence that recognition of delirium affects outcomes. However, delirium recognition presents an opportunity to discuss a person’s overall prognosis and discuss this with the patient and their family. Further research is needed to assess the pathophysiology of delirium to enable development of targeted interventions towards improved outcomes in patients with delirium

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

The original MEMTAB Abstracts in Diagnostic and Prognostic Research contains the incorrect year on individual abstracts in the PDF [1].“Diagnostic and Prognostic Research 2016” under the correspondence line should therefore have been written as “Diagnostic and Prognostic Research 2017” as the journal did not launch until 2017