How valuable are multiple treatment comparison methods in evidence-based health-care evaluation?

Objectives To compare the use of pair-wise meta-analysis methods to multiple treatment comparison (MTC) methods for evidence-based health-care evaluation to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative health-care interventions based on the available evidence. Methods Pair-wise meta-analysis and more complex evidence syntheses, incorporating an MTC component, are applied to three examples: 1) clinical effectiveness of interventions for preventing strokes in people with atrial fibrillation; 2) clinical and cost-effectiveness of using drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary artery disease; and 3) clinical and cost-effectiveness of using neuraminidase inhibitors in the treatment of influenza. We compare the two synthesis approaches with respect to the assumptions made, empirical estimates produced, and conclusions drawn. Results The difference between point estimates of effectiveness produced by the pair-wise and MTC approaches was generally unpredictable—sometimes agreeing closely whereas in other instances differing considerably. In all three examples, the MTC approach allowed the inclusion of randomized controlled trial evidence ignored in the pair-wise meta-analysis approach. This generally increased the precision of the effectiveness estimates from the MTC model. Conclusions The MTC approach to synthesis allows the evidence base on clinical effectiveness to be treated as a coherent whole, include more data, and sometimes relax the assumptions made in the pair-wise approaches. However, MTC models are necessarily more complex than those developed for pair-wise meta-analysis and thus could be seen as less transparent. Therefore, it is important that model details and the assumptions made are carefully reported alongside the results.

Sonication: a valuable technique for diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic joint infections

BACKGROUND Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most severe complication, following joint arthroplasty. Identification of the causal microbial factor is of paramount importance for the successful treatment. PURPOSE The aim of this study is to compare the sonication fluid cultures derived from joint prosthetic components with the respective periprosthetic tissue cultures. METHODS Explanted prosthesis components for suspected infection were placed into a tank containing sterile Ringer's solution and sonicated for 1 minute at 40 kHz. Sonication fluid cultures were examined for 10 days, and the number and identity of any colony morphology was recorded. In addition, periprosthetic tissue specimens (>5) were collected and cultured according to standard practice. The duration of antimicrobial interruption interval before culture sampling was recorded. RESULTS Thirty-four patients composed the study group. Sonication fluid cultures were positive in 24 patients (70.5%). Sixteen of thirty four periprosthetic tissue cultures (47.1%) were considered positive, all revealing the same microbial species with the respective sonication fluid cultures: 3 tissue samples showed polymicrobial infection. All tissue cultures were also found positive by the sonication fluid culture. CONCLUSIONS Sonication fluid cultures represent a cheap, easy, accurate, and sensitive diagnostic modality demonstrating increased sensitivity compared to periprosthetic tissue cultures (70.5 versus 47.1%).

Positron emission mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Is maximum PEM uptake value a valuable threshold for malignant breast cancer detection?

AIM To evaluate the diagnostic value (sensitivity, specificity) of positron emission mammography (PEM) in a single site non-interventional study using the maximum PEM uptake value (PUVmax). PATIENTS, METHODS In a singlesite, non-interventional study, 108 patients (107 women, 1 man) with a total of 151 suspected lesions were scanned with a PEM Flex Solo II (Naviscan) at 90 min p.i. with 3.5 MBq 18F-FDG per kg of body weight. In this ROI(region of interest)-based analysis, maximum PEM uptake value (PUV) was determined in lesions, tumours (PUVmaxtumour), benign lesions (PUVmaxnormal breast) and also in healthy tissues on the contralateral side (PUVmaxcontralateral breast). These values were compared and contrasted. In addition, the ratios of PUVmaxtumour / PUVmaxcontralateral breast and PUVmaxnormal breast / PUVmaxcontralateral breast were compared. The image data were interpreted independently by two experienced nuclear medicine physicians and compared with histology in cases of suspected carcinoma. RESULTS Based on a criteria of PUV>1.9, 31 out of 151 lesions in the patient cohort were found to be malignant (21%). A mean PUVmaxtumour of 3.78 ± 2.47 was identified in malignant tumours, while a mean PUVmaxnormal breast of 1.17 ± 0.37 was reported in the glandular tissue of the healthy breast, with the difference being statistically significant (p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean ratio between tumour and healthy glandular tissue in breast cancer patients (3.15 ± 1.58) was found to be significantly higher than the ratio for benign lesions (1.17 ± 0.41, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION PEM is capable of differentiating breast tumours from benign lesions with 100% sensitivity along with a high specificity of 96%, when a threshold of PUVmax >1.9 is applied.