Dose modulated retrospective ECG-gated versus non-gated 64-row CT angiography of the aorta at the same radiation dose: Comparison of motion artifacts, diagnostic confidence and signal-to-noise-ratios

To compare ECG-gated and non-gated CT angiography of the aorta at the same radiation dose, with regard to motion artifacts (MA), diagnostic confidence (DC) and signal-to-noise-ratios (SNRs).

An empirical comparison of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessary

OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis of studies of the accuracy of diagnostic tests currently uses a variety of methods. Statistically rigorous hierarchical models require expertise and sophisticated software. We assessed whether any of the simpler methods can in practice give adequately accurate and reliable results. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed six methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy: four simple commonly used methods (simple pooling, separate random-effects meta-analyses of sensitivity and specificity, separate meta-analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios, and the Littenberg-Moses summary receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve) and two more statistically rigorous approaches using hierarchical models (bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and hierarchical summary ROC curve analysis). We applied the methods to data from a sample of eight systematic reviews chosen to illustrate a variety of patterns of results. RESULTS: In each meta-analysis, there was substantial heterogeneity between the results of different studies. Simple pooling of results gave misleading summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity in some meta-analyses, and the Littenberg-Moses method produced summary ROC curves that diverged from those produced by more rigorous methods in some situations. CONCLUSION: The closely related hierarchical summary ROC curve or bivariate models should be used as the standard method for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

Diagnostic gap in Bovine viral diarrhea virus serology during the periparturient period in cattle

Detection of antibodies against Bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) in serum and milk by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is a crucial part of all ongoing national schemes to eradicate this important cattle pathogen. Serum and milk are regarded as equally suited for antibody measurement. However, when retesting a seropositive cow 1 day after calving, the serum was negative in 6 out of 9 different ELISAs. To further investigate this diagnostic gap around parturition, pre- and postcalving serum and milk samples of 5 cows were analyzed by BVDV antibody ELISA and serum neutralization test (SNT). By ELISA, 3 out of the 5 animals showed a diagnostic gap in the serum for up to 12 days around calving but all animals remained positive in SNT. In milk, the ELISA was strongly positive after birth but antibody levels decreased considerably within the next few days. Because of the immunoglobulin G (IgG)1-specific transport of serum antibodies into the mammary gland for colostrum production, the IgG subclass specificity of the total and the BVDV-specific antibodies were determined. Although all 5 animals showed a clear decrease in the total and BVDV-specific IgG1 antibody levels at parturition, the precalving IgG1-to-IgG2 ratios of the BVDV-specific antibodies were considerably lower in animals that showed the diagnostic gap. Results showed that BVDV seropositive cows may become "false" negative in several ELISAs in the periparturient period and suggest that the occurrence of this diagnostic gap is influenced by the BVDV-specific IgG subclass response of the individual animal.

Quantitative Myocardial Contrast Echocardiography during Pharmacological Stress for Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

AIMS: We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of quantitative stress myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) in coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Database search was performed through January 2008. We included studies evaluating accuracy of quantitative stress MCE for detection of CAD compared with coronary angiography or single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and measuring reserve parameters of A, beta, and Abeta. Data from studies were verified and supplemented by the authors of each study. Using random effects meta-analysis, we estimated weighted mean difference (WMD), likelihood ratios (LRs), diagnostic odds ratios (DORs), and summary area under curve (AUC), all with 95% confidence interval (CI). Of 1443 studies, 13 including 627 patients (age range, 38-75 years) and comparing MCE with angiography (n = 10), SPECT (n = 1), or both (n = 2) were eligible. WMD (95% CI) were significantly less in CAD group than no-CAD group: 0.12 (0.06-0.18) (P < 0.001), 1.38 (1.28-1.52) (P < 0.001), and 1.47 (1.18-1.76) (P < 0.001) for A, beta, and Abeta reserves, respectively. Pooled LRs for positive test were 1.33 (1.13-1.57), 3.76 (2.43-5.80), and 3.64 (2.87-4.78) and LRs for negative test were 0.68 (0.55-0.83), 0.30 (0.24-0.38), and 0.27 (0.22-0.34) for A, beta, and Abeta reserves, respectively. Pooled DORs were 2.09 (1.42-3.07), 15.11 (7.90-28.91), and 14.73 (9.61-22.57) and AUCs were 0.637 (0.594-0.677), 0.851 (0.828-0.872), and 0.859 (0.842-0.750) for A, beta, and Abeta reserves, respectively. CONCLUSION: Evidence supports the use of quantitative MCE as a non-invasive test for detection of CAD. Standardizing MCE quantification analysis and adherence to reporting standards for diagnostic tests could enhance the quality of evidence in this field.

Diagnostic value of immunoassays for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Immunoassays are essential in the workup of patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. However, the diagnostic accuracy is uncertain with regard to different classes of assays, antibody specificities, thresholds, test variations, and manufacturers. We aimed to assess diagnostic accuracy measures of available immunoassays and to explore sources of heterogeneity. We performed comprehensive literature searches and applied strict inclusion criteria. Finally, 49 publications comprising 128 test evaluations in 15 199 patients were included in the analysis. Methodological quality according to the revised tool for quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies was moderate. Diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated with the unified model (comprising a bivariate random-effects model and a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics model). Important differences were observed between classes of immunoassays, type of antibody specificity, thresholds, application of confirmation step, and manufacturers. Combination of high sensitivity (>95%) and high specificity (>90%) was found in 5 tests only: polyspecific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with intermediate threshold (Genetic Testing Institute, Asserachrom), particle gel immunoassay, lateral flow immunoassay, polyspecific chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) with a high threshold, and immunoglobulin G (IgG)-specific CLIA with low threshold. Borderline results (sensitivity, 99.6%; specificity, 89.9%) were observed for IgG-specific Genetic Testing Institute-ELISA with low threshold. Diagnostic accuracy appears to be inadequate in tests with high thresholds (ELISA; IgG-specific CLIA), combination of IgG specificity and intermediate thresholds (ELISA, CLIA), high-dose heparin confirmation step (ELISA), and particle immunofiltration assay. When making treatment decisions, clinicians should be a aware of diagnostic characteristics of the tests used and it is recommended they estimate posttest probabilities according to likelihood ratios as well as pretest probabilities using clinical scoring tools.