Localization of impacted maxillary canines and root resorption of neighbouring teeth: a study assessing the diagnostic value of panoramic radiographs in two groups of observers.

OBJECTIVES To assess the diagnostic value of panoramic views (2D) of patients with impacted maxillary canines by a group of trained orthodontists and oral surgeons, and to quantify the subjective need and reasons for further three-dimensional (3D) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study comprises 60 patients with panoramic radiographs (2D) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans (3D), and a total of 72 impacted canines. Data from a standardized questionnaire were compared within (intragroup) and between (intergroup) a group of orthodontists and oral surgeons to assess possible correlations and differences. Furthermore, the questionnaire data were compared with the findings from the CBCT scans to estimate the correlation within and between the two specialties. Finally, the need and reasons for further 3D imaging was analysed for both groups. RESULTS When comparing questionnaire data with the analysis of the respective CBCT scans, orthodontists showed probability (Pr) values ranging from 0.443 to 0.943. Oral surgeons exhibited Pr values from 0.191 to 0.946. Statistically significant differences were found for the labiopalatal location of the impacted maxillary canine (P = 0.04), indicating a higher correlation in the orthodontist group. The most frequent reason mentioned for the further need of 3D analysis was the labiopalatal location of the impacted canines. Oral surgeons were more in favour of performing further 3D imaging (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS Orthodontists were more likely to diagnose the exact labiopalatal position of impacted maxillary canines when using panoramic views only. Generally, oral surgeons more often indicated the need for further 3D imaging.

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.