LIVIVO - The Search Portal for Life Sciences

zur deutschen Oberfläche wechseln
Advanced search

Search results

Result 1 - 10 of total 349

Search options

  1. Book ; Online ; E-Book: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy

    Deeks, Jonathan J. / Bossuyt, Patrick M. / Leeflang, Mariska M. / Takwoingi, Yemisi

    (Wiley cochrane series)

    2023  

    Abstract: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test AccuracyA guide to conducting systematic reviews of test accuracyIn Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy, a team of distinguished researchers deliver the official ...

    Author's details edited by Jonathan J. Deeks, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Mariska M. Leeflang, Yemisi Takwoingi
    Series title Wiley cochrane series
    Abstract Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test AccuracyA guide to conducting systematic reviews of test accuracyIn Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy, a team of distinguished researchers deliver the official guide to preparing and maintaining systematic reviews of test accuracy in healthcare. This first edition of the Handbook contains guidance on understanding test accuracy measures, search strategies and study selection, understanding meta-analysis and risk of bias and applicability assessments, presentation of findings, and drawing conclusions.Readers will also find:* An introduction to test evaluation, including the purposes of medical testing, test accuracy and the impact of tests on patient outcomes* Comprehensive explorations of the design of test accuracy studies, including discussions of reference standards and comparative test accuracy studies* Considerations of the methods and presentation of systematic reviews of test accuracy* Elaboration of study selection, data collection, and undertaking risk of bias and applicability assessmentsPerfect for medical practitioners and clinicians, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy will also benefit professionals in epidemiology and students in related fields
    Language English
    Size 1 Online-Ressource (xxiv, 408 Seiten), Illustrationen, Diagramme
    Publisher Wiley Blackwell
    Publishing place Hoboken, NJ
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Book ; Online ; E-Book
    Remark Zugriff für angemeldete ZB MED-Nutzerinnen und -Nutzer
    HBZ-ID HT030667353
    ISBN 978-1-119-75617-0 ; 978-1-119-75618-7 ; 9781119756163 ; 1-119-75617-0 ; 1-119-75618-9 ; 1119756162
    Database ZB MED Catalogue: Medicine, Health, Nutrition, Environment, Agriculture

    Kategorien

  2. Article ; Online: Letter to the Editor regarding Leber W, Lammel O, Siebenhofer A, Redlberger-Fritz M, Panovska-Griffiths J, Czypionka T. Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lateral flow antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR in primary care (REAP-2).

    Deeks, Jonathan J

    EClinicalMedicine

    2021  Volume 40, Page(s) 101106

    Language English
    Publishing date 2021-09-12
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article
    ISSN 2589-5370
    ISSN (online) 2589-5370
    DOI 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101106
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  3. Article ; Online: Letter to the Editor regarding Leber W, Lammel O, Siebenhofer A, Redlberger-Fritz M, Panovska-Griffiths J, Czypionka T. Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lateral flow antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR in primary care (REAP-2)

    Jonathan J Deeks

    EClinicalMedicine, Vol 40, Iss , Pp 101106- (2021)

    2021  

    Keywords Medicine (General) ; R5-920
    Language English
    Publishing date 2021-10-01T00:00:00Z
    Publisher Elsevier
    Document type Article ; Online
    Database BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

    More links

    Kategorien

  4. Article ; Online: Raising the Bar: Further Improvement is Required to Make More Test Accuracy Research Fit for Decision-making.

    Deeks, Jonathan J

    Clinical chemistry

    2017  Volume 63, Issue 8, Page(s) 1315–1317

    MeSH term(s) Decision Making ; Research
    Language English
    Publishing date 2017-06-12
    Publishing country England
    Document type Editorial ; Comment
    ZDB-ID 80102-1
    ISSN 1530-8561 ; 0009-9147
    ISSN (online) 1530-8561
    ISSN 0009-9147
    DOI 10.1373/clinchem.2017.274431
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  5. Book ; Conference proceedings: 3rd Symposium on Systemic Review Methodology

    Deeks, Jonathan J.

    [University of Oxford on 3 - 5 July 2000]

    (Statistics in medicine ; 21,11)

    2002  

    Institution Symposium on Systemic Review Methodology
    Author's details guest eds.: Jonathan J. Deeks
    Series title Statistics in medicine ; 21,11
    Collection
    Language English
    Size S. 1501 - 1640 : graph. Darst.
    Publisher Wiley
    Publishing place Chichester u.a.
    Publishing country Great Britain
    Document type Book ; Conference proceedings
    HBZ-ID HT013373191
    Database Catalogue ZB MED Medicine, Health

    Kategorien

  6. Article ; Online: Evaluating medical tests: introducing the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.

    Bossuyt, Patrick M / Deeks, Jonathan J / Leeflang, Mariska M / Takwoingi, Yemisi / Flemyng, Ella

    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews

    2023  Volume 7, Page(s) ED000163

    MeSH term(s) Humans ; Systematic Reviews as Topic ; Diagnostic Tests, Routine
    Language English
    Publishing date 2023-07-20
    Publishing country England
    Document type Editorial
    ISSN 1469-493X
    ISSN (online) 1469-493X
    DOI 10.1002/14651858.ED000163
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  7. Article ; Online: Lateral flow tests cannot rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection.

    Deeks, Jonathan J / Raffle, Angela E

    BMJ (Clinical research ed.)

    2020  Volume 371, Page(s) m4787

    MeSH term(s) COVID-19/diagnosis ; COVID-19/epidemiology ; COVID-19/prevention & control ; COVID-19/psychology ; COVID-19 Testing/methods ; COVID-19 Testing/standards ; COVID-19 Testing/trends ; Carrier State/diagnosis ; Carrier State/epidemiology ; Carrier State/prevention & control ; Diagnostic Errors/prevention & control ; Epidemiological Monitoring ; Humans ; SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification ; Uncertainty
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-12-11
    Publishing country England
    Document type Editorial
    ZDB-ID 1362901-3
    ISSN 1756-1833 ; 0959-8154 ; 0959-8146 ; 0959-8138 ; 0959-535X ; 1759-2151
    ISSN (online) 1756-1833
    ISSN 0959-8154 ; 0959-8146 ; 0959-8138 ; 0959-535X ; 1759-2151
    DOI 10.1136/bmj.m4787
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  8. Article ; Online: Pressure-garment therapy for preventing hypertrophic scarring after burn injury.

    Harris, Isobel M / Lee, Kwang Chear / Deeks, Jonathan J / Moore, David J / Moiemen, Naiem S / Dretzke, Janine

    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews

    2024  Volume 1, Page(s) CD013530

    Abstract: Background: Burn damage to skin often results in scarring; however in some individuals the failure of normal wound-healing processes results in excessive scar tissue formation, termed 'hypertrophic scarring'. The most commonly used method for the ... ...

    Abstract Background: Burn damage to skin often results in scarring; however in some individuals the failure of normal wound-healing processes results in excessive scar tissue formation, termed 'hypertrophic scarring'. The most commonly used method for the prevention and treatment of hypertrophic scarring is pressure-garment therapy (PGT). PGT is considered standard care globally; however, there is continued uncertainty around its effectiveness.
    Objectives: To evaluate the benefits and harms of pressure-garment therapy for the prevention of hypertrophic scarring after burn injury.
    Search methods: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and two trials registers on 8 June 2023 with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
    Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PGT (alone or in combination with other scar-management therapies) with scar management therapies not including PGT, or comparing different PGT pressures or different types of PGT.
    Data collection and analysis: At least two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion using predetermined inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
    Main results: We included 15 studies in this review (1179 participants), 14 of which (1057 participants) presented useable data. The sample size of included studies ranged from 17 to 159 participants. Most studies included both adults and children. Eight studies compared a pressure garment (with or without another scar management therapy) with scar management therapy alone, five studies compared the same pressure garment at a higher pressure versus a lower pressure, and two studies compared two different types of pressure garments. Studies used a variety of pressure garments (e.g. in-house manufactured or a commercial brand). Types of scar management therapies included were lanolin massage, topical silicone gel, silicone sheet/dressing, and heparin sodium ointment. Meta-analysis was not possible as there was significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity between studies. Main outcome measures were scar improvement assessed using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) or the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) (or both), pain, pruritus, quality of life, adverse events, and adherence to therapy. Studies additionally reported a further 14 outcomes, mostly individual scar parameters, some of which contributed to global scores on the VSS or POSAS. The amount of evidence for each individual outcome was limited. Most studies had a short follow-up, which may have affected results as the full effect of any therapy on scar healing may not be seen until around 18 months. PGT versus no treatment/lanolin We included five studies (378 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on whether PGT improves scars as assessed by the VSS compared with no treatment/lanolin. The evidence is also very uncertain for pain, pruritus, adverse events, and adherence. No study used the POSAS or assessed quality of life. One additional study (122 participants) did not report useable data. PGT versus silicone We included three studies (359 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of PGT compared with silicone, as assessed by the VSS and POSAS. The evidence is also very uncertain for pain, pruritus, quality of life, adverse events, adherence, and other scar parameters. It is possible that silicone may result in fewer adverse events or better adherence compared with PGT but this was also based on very low-certainty evidence. PGT plus silicone versus no treatment/lanolin We included two studies (200 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on whether PGT plus silicone improves scars as assessed by the VSS compared with no treatment/lanolin. The evidence is also very uncertain for pain, pruritus, and adverse events. No study used the POSAS or assessed quality of life or adherence. PGT plus silicone versus silicone We included three studies (359 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of PGT plus silicone compared with silicone, as assessed by the VSS and POSAS. The evidence is also very uncertain for pain, pruritus, quality of life, adverse events, and adherence. PGT plus scar management therapy including silicone versus scar management therapy including silicone We included one study (88 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of PGT plus scar management therapy including silicone versus scar management therapy including silicone, as assessed by the VSS and POSAS. The evidence is also very uncertain for pain, pruritus, quality of life, adverse events, and adherence. High-pressure versus low-pressure garments We included five studies (262 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of high pressure versus low pressure PGT on adverse events and adherence. No study used the VSS or the POSAS or assessed pain, pruritus, or quality of life. Different types of PGT (Caroskin Tricot + an adhesive silicone gel sheet versus Gecko Nanoplast (silicone gel bandage)) We included one study (60 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of Caroskin Tricot versus Gecko Nanoplast on the POSAS, pain, pruritus, and adverse events. The study did not use the VSS or assess quality of life or adherence. Different types of pressure garments (Jobst versus Tubigrip) We included one study (110 participants). The evidence is very uncertain on the adherence to either Jobst or Tubigrip. This study did not report any other outcomes.
    Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to recommend using either PGT or an alternative for preventing hypertrophic scarring after burn injury. PGT is already commonly used in practice and it is possible that continuing to do so may provide some benefit to some people. However, until more evidence becomes available, it may be appropriate to allow patient preference to guide therapy.
    MeSH term(s) Adult ; Child ; Humans ; Cicatrix/etiology ; Cicatrix/prevention & control ; Lanolin ; Silicone Gels/therapeutic use ; Burns/complications ; Burns/therapy ; Pain ; Pruritus/etiology ; Pruritus/prevention & control
    Chemical Substances Lanolin (8006-54-0) ; Silicone Gels
    Language English
    Publishing date 2024-01-08
    Publishing country England
    Document type Systematic Review ; Journal Article ; Review
    ISSN 1469-493X
    ISSN (online) 1469-493X
    DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD013530.pub2
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  9. Article ; Online: Point-of-care viral load tests to detect high HIV viral load in people living with HIV/AIDS attending health facilities.

    Ochodo, Eleanor A / Olwanda, Easter Elizabeth / Deeks, Jonathan J / Mallett, Sue

    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews

    2022  Volume 3, Page(s) CD013208

    Abstract: Background: Viral load (VL) testing in people living with HIV (PLHIV) helps to monitor antiretroviral therapy (ART). VL is still largely tested using central laboratory-based platforms, which have long test turnaround times and involve sophisticated ... ...

    Abstract Background: Viral load (VL) testing in people living with HIV (PLHIV) helps to monitor antiretroviral therapy (ART). VL is still largely tested using central laboratory-based platforms, which have long test turnaround times and involve sophisticated equipment. VL tests with point-of-care (POC) platforms capable of being used near the patient are potentially easy to use, give quick results, are cost-effective, and could replace central or reference VL testing platforms.
    Objectives: To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of POC tests to detect high viral load levels in PLHIV attending healthcare facilities.
    Search methods: We searched eight electronic databases using standard, extensive Cochrane search methods, and did not use any language, document type, or publication status limitations. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews, and consulted an expert in the field from the World Health Organization (WHO) HIV Department for potentially relevant studies. The latest search was 23 November 2020.
    Selection criteria: We included any primary study that compared the results of a VL test with a POC platform to that of a central laboratory-based reference test to detect high viral load in PLHIV on HIV/AIDS care or follow-up. We included all forms of POC tests for VL as defined by study authors, regardless of the healthcare facility in which the test was conducted. We excluded diagnostic case-control studies with healthy controls and studies that did not provide sufficient data to create the 2 × 2 tables to calculate sensitivity and specificity. We did not limit our study inclusion to age, gender, or geographical setting.
    Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the search results to identify eligible articles. They also independently extracted data using a standardized data extraction form and conducted risk of bias assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Using participants as the unit of analysis, we fitted simplified univariable models for sensitivity and specificity separately, employing a random-effects model to estimate the summary sensitivity and specificity at the current and commonly reported World Health Organization (WHO) threshold (≥ 1000 copies/mL). The bivariate models did not converge to give a model estimate.
    Main results: We identified 18 studies (24 evaluations, 10,034 participants) defining high viral loads at main thresholds ≥ 1000 copies/mL (n = 20), ≥ 5000 copies/mL (n = 1), and ≥ 40 copies/mL (n = 3). All evaluations were done on samples from PLHIV retrieved from routine HIV/AIDS care centres or health facilities. For clinical applicability, we included 14 studies (20 evaluations, 8659 participants) assessing high viral load at the clinical threshold of ≥ 1000 copies/mL in the meta-analyses. Of these, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and Asia contributed 16, three, and one evaluation respectively. All included participants were on ART in only nine evaluations; in the other 11 evaluations the proportion of participants on ART was either partial or not clearly stated. Thirteen evaluations included adults only (n = 13), five mixed populations of adults and children, whilst in the remaining two the age of included populations was not clearly stated. The majority of evaluations included commercially available tests (n = 18). Ten evaluations were POC VL tests conducted near the patient in a peripheral or onsite laboratory, whilst the other 10 were evaluations of POC VL tests in a central or reference laboratory setting. The test types evaluated as POC VL tests included Xpert HIV-1 Viral Load test (n = 8), SAMBA HIV-1 Semi-Q Test (n = 9), Alere Q NAT prototype assay for HIV-1 (n = 2) and m-PIMA HIV-1/2 Viral Load test (n = 1). The majority of evaluations (n = 17) used plasma samples, whilst the rest (n = 3) utilized whole blood samples. Pooled sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) of POC VL at a threshold of ≥ 1000 copies/mL was 96.6% (94.8 to 97.8) (20 evaluations, 2522 participants), and pooled specificity (95% CI) was 95.7% (90.8 to 98.0) (20 evaluations, 6137 participants). Median prevalence for high viral load (≥ 1000 copies/mL) (n = 20) was 33.4% (range 6.9% to 88.5%). Limitations The risk of bias was mostly assessed as unclear across the four domains due to incomplete reporting.
    Authors' conclusions: We found POC VL to have high sensitivity and high specificity for the diagnosis of high HIV viral load in PLHIV attending healthcare facilities at a clinical threshold of ≥ 1000 copies/mL.
    MeSH term(s) Adult ; Child ; HIV Infections/diagnosis ; Health Facilities ; Humans ; Point-of-Care Systems ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Serologic Tests ; Viral Load
    Language English
    Publishing date 2022-03-10
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article ; Meta-Analysis ; Review ; Systematic Review
    ISSN 1469-493X
    ISSN (online) 1469-493X
    DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD013208.pub2
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  10. Article ; Online: Operation Moonshot proposals are scientifically unsound.

    Deeks, Jonathan J / Brookes, Anthony J / Pollock, Allyson M

    BMJ (Clinical research ed.)

    2020  Volume 370, Page(s) m3699

    MeSH term(s) COVID-19 ; COVID-19 Testing ; Clinical Laboratory Techniques ; Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis ; Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology ; False Positive Reactions ; Health Policy ; Humans ; Mass Screening ; Pandemics ; Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis ; Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; United Kingdom
    Keywords covid19
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-09-22
    Publishing country England
    Document type Editorial
    ZDB-ID 1362901-3
    ISSN 1756-1833 ; 0959-8154 ; 0959-8146 ; 0959-8138 ; 0959-535X ; 1759-2151
    ISSN (online) 1756-1833
    ISSN 0959-8154 ; 0959-8146 ; 0959-8138 ; 0959-535X ; 1759-2151
    DOI 10.1136/bmj.m3699
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

To top