The scratch collapse test: A QUADAS-2 assessment of a systematic review

Diagnostic value of HPV E6/E7 mRNA in screening for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

Histology is considered the gold standard for diagnosing the pathological progress of cervical cancer development, while cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) is the cutoff for intervention in clinical practice. The diagnostic value of human papillomavirus (HPV) E6/E7 mRNA in screening for CIN2+ has not been systematically summarized. A meta-analysis was conducted as part of the present study conducted to explore the diagnostic value of HPV E6/E7 mRNA in screening for CIN2+, aiming to provide a new marker for earlier clinical diagnosis of cervical cancer. The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to May 2023. Studies reporting the true positive, false positive, true negative and false negative values in differentiating between CIN2+ and CIN2- were included, while duplicate publications, studies without full text, incomplete information or inability to conduct data extraction, animal experiments, reviews and systematic reviews were excluded. STATA software was used to analyze the data. A total of 2,224 patients were included of whom there were 1,274 patients with CIN2+ and 950 patients with CIN2-. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the studies overall were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84-0.92) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46-0.71), respectively; the positive likelihood ratio (LR) and the negative LR of the studies overall were 2.31 (95% CI, 1.61-3.32) and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.14-0.30), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio of the studies overall was 11.53 (95% CI, 6.85-19.36). Additionally, the area under the curve was 0.88. The analysis indicated that HPV E6/E7 mRNA has high diagnostic efficacy for CIN2+. HPV E6/E7 mRNA is highly sensitive in the diagnosis of CIN2+, which helps to reduce the rate of missed diagnoses. However, lower specificity may lead to a higher number of misdiagnoses in healthy patients.

What about TSH and Anti-Thyroid Antibodies in Patients with Autoimmune Thyroiditis and Celiac Disease Using a Gluten-Free Diet? A Systematic Review

The prevalence of celiac disease (CD) in patients with chronic autoimmune thyroiditis (CAIT) is estimated to be between 2 and 7.8%. A gluten-free diet (GFD) in patients with CD is suggested to have a beneficial effect on CAIT. Thus, the present systematic review was undertaken to achieve more robust evidence about the change in thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) and thyroid-specific antibodies (T-Ab) levels obtained in CD patients following a GFD. A specific search strategy was planned. The last search was performed on March 2022. The following data were mainly searched for in order to be extracted: sample size, mean and/or median with standard deviation (SD), and error (SE), individually, of thyroid hormones and T-Ab at baseline and after GFD, and the duration of the study. The initial search retrieved 297 records and 6 articles met the inclusion criteria. In total, 50 patients with both CD and CAIT and 45 controls were reported. The effects of a GFD on the thyroid hormonal and immunological profile could be extracted only in a part of the studies. Two studies were case reports. A low risk of bias was observed. These findings advise further studies, ideally randomized, in order to better investigate the potential relationship between GFD and thyroid homeostasis. The level of evidence is not still sufficient to recommend GFD to patients with CAIT.

Diagnostic value of aldosterone to renin ratio calculated by plasma renin activity or plasma renin concentration in primary aldosteronism

Background:

Since the diagnostic value of aldosterone to renin ratio (ARR) calculated by plasma renin concentration (PRC) or plasma renin activity (PRA) is still inconclusive, we conducted a meta-analysis by systematically reviewing relevant literature to explore the difference in the diagnostic efficacy of ARR calculated by PRC or PRA, so as to provide guidance for clinical diagnosis.

Methods:

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from the establishment of the database to March 2021. We included studies that report the true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative values for the diagnosis of primary aldosteronism, and we excluded duplicate publications, research without full text, incomplete information, or inability to conduct data extraction, animal experiments, reviews, and systematic reviews. STATA 15.1 was used to analyze the data.

Results:

The pooled results showed that ARR (plasma aldosterone concentration [PAC]/PRC) had a sensitivity of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78–0.86), a specificity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92–0.95), a positive-likelihood ratio (LR) of 12.77 (95% CI: 7.04–23.73), a negative LR of 0.11 (95% CI: 0.07–0.17), and symmetric area under the curve (SAUC) of 0.982, respectively. Furthermore, the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of ARR (PAC/PRC) was 180.21. Additionally, the pooled results showed that ARR (PAC/PRA) had a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86–0.95), a specificity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.90–0.93), a positive LR of 7.30 (95% CI: 2.99–17.99), a negative LR of 0.10 (95% CI: 0.04–0.26), and SAUC of 0.976, respectively. The DOR of ARR (PAC/PRA) was 155.52. Additionally, we conducted a subgroup analysis for the different thresholds (<35 or ≥35) of PAC/PRC. The results showed that the DOR of the cut-off ≥35 groups was higher than the cut-off <35 groups (DOR = 340.15, 95% CI: 38.32–3019.66; DOR = 116.40, 95% CI = 23.28–581.92).

Conclusions:

The research results suggest that the determination of ARR (PAC/PRC) and ARR (PAC/PRA) was all effective screening tools for PA. The diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic value of ARR (PAC/PRC) are higher than ARR (PAC/PRA). In addition, within a certain range, the higher the threshold, the better the diagnostic value.