1
|
Safaei Ardestani SZ, Rahideh ST. The effect of omega‑3 fatty acid supplementation on clinical and biochemical parameters of critically ill patients with COVID‑19: a randomized clinical trial. J Transl Med 2022; 20:32. [PMID: 35033110 PMCID: PMC8760743 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-022-03237-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2021] [Accepted: 01/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | - Seyedeh Tayebeh Rahideh
- Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Thaljaoui A, Khediri SE, Benmohamed E, Alabdulatif A, Alourani A. Integrated Bayesian and association-rules methods for autonomously orienting COVID-19 patients. Med Biol Eng Comput 2022; 60:3475-3496. [PMID: 36205834 PMCID: PMC9540074 DOI: 10.1007/s11517-022-02677-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2021] [Accepted: 09/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
The coronavirus infection continues to spread rapidly worldwide, having a devastating impact on the health of the global population. To fight against COVID-19, we propose a novel autonomous decision-making process which combines two modules in order to support the decision-maker: (1) Bayesian Networks method–based data-analysis module, which is used to specify the severity of coronavirus symptoms and classify cases as mild, moderate, and severe, and (2) autonomous decision-making module–based association rules mining method. This method allows the autonomous generation of the adequate decision based on the FP-growth algorithm and the distance between objects. To build the Bayesian Network model, we propose a novel data–based method that enables to effectively learn the network’s structure, namely, MIGT-SL algorithm. The experimentations are performed over pre-processed discrete dataset. The proposed algorithm allows to correctly generate 74%, 87.5%, and 100% of the original structure of ALARM, ASIA, and CANCER networks. The proposed Bayesian model performs well in terms of accuracy with 96.15% and 94.77%, respectively, for binary and multi-class classification. The developed decision-making model is evaluated according to its utility in solving the decisional problem, and its accuracy of proposing the adequate decision is about 97.80%.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adel Thaljaoui
- grid.449051.d0000 0004 0441 5633Department of Computer Science and Information, College of Science at Zulfi, Majmaah University, Al-Majmaah, 11952 Saudi Arabia
| | - Salim El Khediri
- grid.412602.30000 0000 9421 8094Department of Information Technology, College of Computer, Qassim University, Buraydah, Saudi Arabia ,grid.442516.00000 0004 0475 6067Department of Computer Sciences, Faculty of Sciences of Gafsa, University of Gafsa, Gafsa, Tunisia
| | - Emna Benmohamed
- grid.442516.00000 0004 0475 6067Department of Computer Sciences, Faculty of Sciences of Gafsa, University of Gafsa, Gafsa, Tunisia ,grid.412124.00000 0001 2323 5644Research Groups in Intelligent Machines, University of Sfax, National School of Engineers (ENIS), BP 1173, 3038 Sfax, Tunisia
| | - Abdulatif Alabdulatif
- grid.412602.30000 0000 9421 8094Department of Computer Sciences, College of Computer, Qassim University, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia
| | - Abdullah Alourani
- grid.449051.d0000 0004 0441 5633Department of Computer Science and Information, College of Science at Zulfi, Majmaah University, Al-Majmaah, 11952 Saudi Arabia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Chowdhury MEH, Rahman T, Khandakar A, Al-Madeed S, Zughaier SM, Doi SAR, Hassen H, Islam MT. An Early Warning Tool for Predicting Mortality Risk of COVID-19 Patients Using Machine Learning. Cognit Comput 2021:1-16. [PMID: 33897907 PMCID: PMC8058759 DOI: 10.1007/s12559-020-09812-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2020] [Accepted: 12/28/2020] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
COVID-19 pandemic has created an extreme pressure on the global healthcare services. Fast, reliable, and early clinical assessment of the severity of the disease can help in allocating and prioritizing resources to reduce mortality. In order to study the important blood biomarkers for predicting disease mortality, a retrospective study was conducted on a dataset made public by Yan et al. in [1] of 375 COVID-19 positive patients admitted to Tongji Hospital (China) from January 10 to February 18, 2020. Demographic and clinical characteristics and patient outcomes were investigated using machine learning tools to identify key biomarkers to predict the mortality of individual patient. A nomogram was developed for predicting the mortality risk among COVID-19 patients. Lactate dehydrogenase, neutrophils (%), lymphocyte (%), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and age (LNLCA)-acquired at hospital admission-were identified as key predictors of death by multi-tree XGBoost model. The area under curve (AUC) of the nomogram for the derivation and validation cohort were 0.961 and 0.991, respectively. An integrated score (LNLCA) was calculated with the corresponding death probability. COVID-19 patients were divided into three subgroups: low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups using LNLCA cutoff values of 10.4 and 12.65 with the death probability less than 5%, 5-50%, and above 50%, respectively. The prognostic model, nomogram, and LNLCA score can help in early detection of high mortality risk of COVID-19 patients, which will help doctors to improve the management of patient stratification.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Tawsifur Rahman
- Department of Biomedical Physics & Technology, University of Dhaka, 1000 Dhaka, Bangladesh
| | - Amith Khandakar
- Department of Electrical Engineering, Qatar University, 2713 Doha, Qatar
| | - Somaya Al-Madeed
- Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Qatar University, 2713 Doha, Qatar
| | - Susu M. Zughaier
- Department of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Qatar University, 2713 Doha, Qatar
| | - Suhail A. R. Doi
- Department of Population Medicine, College of Medicine, Qatar University, 2713 Doha, Qatar
| | - Hanadi Hassen
- Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Qatar University, 2713 Doha, Qatar
| | - Mohammad T. Islam
- Department of Electrical, Electronics and Systems Engineering, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor Malaysia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Dinnes J, Deeks JJ, Berhane S, Taylor M, Adriano A, Davenport C, Dittrich S, Emperador D, Takwoingi Y, Cunningham J, Beese S, Domen J, Dretzke J, Ferrante di Ruffano L, Harris IM, Price MJ, Taylor-Phillips S, Hooft L, Leeflang MM, McInnes MD, Spijker R, Van den Bruel A. Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 3:CD013705. [PMID: 33760236 PMCID: PMC8078597 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013705.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 295] [Impact Index Per Article: 98.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission. OBJECTIVES To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. SEARCH METHODS Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID-19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS-2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. MAIN RESULTS Seventy-eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre-prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays. We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (50%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (45%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 based on a single RT-PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID-19. Antigen tests Forty-eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%). At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self-testing. Rapid molecular assays Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer's instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID-19 diagnostics ('acceptable' sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT-PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice. Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self-testing) are required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacqueline Dinnes
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham , UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Jonathan J Deeks
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Sarah Berhane
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Melissa Taylor
- Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK
| | - Ada Adriano
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Clare Davenport
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | | | - Yemisi Takwoingi
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Jane Cunningham
- Global Malaria Programme, World Health Organization, Geneva , Switzerland
| | - Sophie Beese
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Julie Domen
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Janine Dretzke
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Isobel M Harris
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Malcolm J Price
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Sian Taylor-Phillips
- Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick , Coventry, UK
| | - Lotty Hooft
- Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht , Netherlands
| | - Mariska Mg Leeflang
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | - René Spijker
- Medical Library, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Ann Van den Bruel
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Estiri H, Strasser ZH, Murphy SN. Individualized prediction of COVID-19 adverse outcomes with MLHO. Sci Rep 2021; 11:5322. [PMID: 33674708 PMCID: PMC7935934 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-84781-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2020] [Accepted: 02/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the world with health and economic wreckage. Precise estimates of adverse outcomes from COVID-19 could have led to better allocation of healthcare resources and more efficient targeted preventive measures, including insight into prioritizing how to best distribute a vaccination. We developed MLHO (pronounced as melo), an end-to-end Machine Learning framework that leverages iterative feature and algorithm selection to predict Health Outcomes. MLHO implements iterative sequential representation mining, and feature and model selection, for predicting patient-level risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and death. It bases this prediction on data from patients' past medical records (before their COVID-19 infection). MLHO's architecture enables a parallel and outcome-oriented model calibration, in which different statistical learning algorithms and vectors of features are simultaneously tested to improve prediction of health outcomes. Using clinical and demographic data from a large cohort of over 13,000 COVID-19-positive patients, we modeled the four adverse outcomes utilizing about 600 features representing patients' pre-COVID health records and demographics. The mean AUC ROC for mortality prediction was 0.91, while the prediction performance ranged between 0.80 and 0.81 for the ICU, hospitalization, and ventilation. We broadly describe the clusters of features that were utilized in modeling and their relative influence for predicting each outcome. Our results demonstrated that while demographic variables (namely age) are important predictors of adverse outcomes after a COVID-19 infection, the incorporation of the past clinical records are vital for a reliable prediction model. As the COVID-19 pandemic unfolds around the world, adaptable and interpretable machine learning frameworks (like MLHO) are crucial to improve our readiness for confronting the potential future waves of COVID-19, as well as other novel infectious diseases that may emerge.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hossein Estiri
- Laboratory of Computer Science, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02144, USA.
- Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
| | - Zachary H Strasser
- Laboratory of Computer Science, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02144, USA
- Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02115, USA
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02115, USA
| | - Shawn N Murphy
- Laboratory of Computer Science, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02144, USA
- Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02115, USA
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02115, USA
- Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Dinnes J, Deeks JJ, Adriano A, Berhane S, Davenport C, Dittrich S, Emperador D, Takwoingi Y, Cunningham J, Beese S, Dretzke J, Ferrante di Ruffano L, Harris IM, Price MJ, Taylor-Phillips S, Hooft L, Leeflang MM, Spijker R, Van den Bruel A. Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 8:CD013705. [PMID: 32845525 PMCID: PMC8078202 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013705] [Citation(s) in RCA: 343] [Impact Index Per Article: 85.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify or rule out current infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current SARS-CoV-2 infection have the potential to allow earlier detection and isolation of confirmed cases compared to laboratory-based diagnostic methods, with the aim of reducing household and community transmission. OBJECTIVES To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection. SEARCH METHODS On 25 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA We included studies of people with suspected current SARS-CoV-2 infection, known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results available within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. One review author independently extracted study characteristics, which were checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently extracted 2x2 contingency table data and assessed risk of bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We present sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each test using paired forest plots. We pooled data using the bivariate hierarchical model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests, with simplifications when few studies were available. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. MAIN RESULTS We included 22 publications reporting on a total of 18 study cohorts with 3198 unique samples, of which 1775 had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ten studies took place in North America, two in South America, four in Europe, one in China and one was conducted internationally. We identified data for eight commercial tests (four antigen and four molecular) and one in-house antigen test. Five of the studies included were only available as preprints. We did not find any studies at low risk of bias for all quality domains and had concerns about applicability of results across all studies. We judged patient selection to be at high risk of bias in 50% of the studies because of deliberate over-sampling of samples with confirmed COVID-19 infection and unclear in seven out of 18 studies because of poor reporting. Sixteen (89%) studies used only a single, negative RT-PCR to confirm the absence of COVID-19 infection, risking missing infection. There was a lack of information on blinding of index test (n = 11), and around participant exclusions from analyses (n = 10). We did not observe differences in methodological quality between antigen and molecular test evaluations. Antigen tests Sensitivity varied considerably across studies (from 0% to 94%): the average sensitivity was 56.2% (95% CI 29.5 to 79.8%) and average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.1% to 99.9%; based on 8 evaluations in 5 studies on 943 samples). Data for individual antigen tests were limited with no more than two studies for any test. Rapid molecular assays Sensitivity showed less variation compared to antigen tests (from 68% to 100%), average sensitivity was 95.2% (95% CI 86.7% to 98.3%) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.5%) based on 13 evaluations in 11 studies of on 2255 samples. Predicted values based on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people with suspected COVID-19 infection (with a prevalence of 10%) result in 105 positive test results including 10 false positives (positive predictive value 90%), and 895 negative results including 5 false negatives (negative predictive value 99%). Individual tests We calculated pooled results of individual tests for ID NOW (Abbott Laboratories) (5 evaluations) and Xpert Xpress (Cepheid Inc) (6 evaluations). Summary sensitivity for the Xpert Xpress assay (99.4%, 95% CI 98.0% to 99.8%) was 22.6 (95% CI 18.8 to 26.3) percentage points higher than that of ID NOW (76.8%, (95% CI 72.9% to 80.3%), whilst the specificity of Xpert Xpress (96.8%, 95% CI 90.6% to 99.0%) was marginally lower than ID NOW (99.6%, 95% CI 98.4% to 99.9%; a difference of -2.8% (95% CI -6.4 to 0.8)) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies early-stage evaluations of point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, largely based on remnant laboratory samples. The findings currently have limited applicability, as we are uncertain whether tests will perform in the same way in clinical practice, and according to symptoms of COVID-19, duration of symptoms, or in asymptomatic people. Rapid tests have the potential to be used to inform triage of RT-PCR use, allowing earlier detection of those testing positive, but the evidence currently is not strong enough to determine how useful they are in clinical practice. Prospective and comparative evaluations of rapid tests for COVID-19 infection in clinically relevant settings are urgently needed. Studies should recruit consecutive series of eligible participants, including both those presenting for testing due to symptoms and asymptomatic people who may have come into contact with confirmed cases. Studies should clearly describe symptomatic status and document time from symptom onset or time since exposure. Point-of-care tests must be conducted on samples according to manufacturer instructions for use and be conducted at the point of care. Any future research study report should conform to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guideline.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacqueline Dinnes
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Jonathan J Deeks
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Ada Adriano
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Sarah Berhane
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Clare Davenport
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | | | - Yemisi Takwoingi
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Jane Cunningham
- Global Malaria Programme, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Sophie Beese
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Janine Dretzke
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Isobel M Harris
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Malcolm J Price
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Sian Taylor-Phillips
- Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Lotty Hooft
- Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Mariska Mg Leeflang
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Biomarker and Test Evaluation Programme (BiTE), Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - René Spijker
- Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Medical Library, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Ann Van den Bruel
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, Takwoingi Y, Davenport C, Spijker R, Taylor-Phillips S, Adriano A, Beese S, Dretzke J, Ferrante di Ruffano L, Harris IM, Price MJ, Dittrich S, Emperador D, Hooft L, Leeflang MM, Van den Bruel A. Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 6:CD013652. [PMID: 32584464 PMCID: PMC7387103 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013652] [Citation(s) in RCA: 432] [Impact Index Per Article: 108.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection. OBJECTIVES To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys. SEARCH METHODS We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan J Deeks
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Jacqueline Dinnes
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Yemisi Takwoingi
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Clare Davenport
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - René Spijker
- Medical Library, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Sian Taylor-Phillips
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Ada Adriano
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Sophie Beese
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Janine Dretzke
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Isobel M Harris
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Malcolm J Price
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | | | - Lotty Hooft
- Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Mariska Mg Leeflang
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Biomarker and Test Evaluation Programme (BiTE), Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Ann Van den Bruel
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Wynants L, Van Calster B, Collins GS, Riley RD, Heinze G, Schuit E, Bonten MMJ, Dahly DL, Damen JAA, Debray TPA, de Jong VMT, De Vos M, Dhiman P, Haller MC, Harhay MO, Henckaerts L, Heus P, Kammer M, Kreuzberger N, Lohmann A, Luijken K, Ma J, Martin GP, McLernon DJ, Andaur Navarro CL, Reitsma JB, Sergeant JC, Shi C, Skoetz N, Smits LJM, Snell KIE, Sperrin M, Spijker R, Steyerberg EW, Takada T, Tzoulaki I, van Kuijk SMJ, van Bussel B, van der Horst ICC, van Royen FS, Verbakel JY, Wallisch C, Wilkinson J, Wolff R, Hooft L, Moons KGM, van Smeden M. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal. BMJ 2020; 369:m1328. [PMID: 32265220 PMCID: PMC7222643 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m1328] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1634] [Impact Index Per Article: 408.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/31/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease. DESIGN Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. DATA SOURCES PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. DATA EXTRACTION At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). RESULTS 37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models. CONCLUSION Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. READERS' NOTE This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laure Wynants
- Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Peter Debyeplein 1, 6229 HA Maastricht, Netherlands
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Ben Van Calster
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Georg Heinze
- Section for Clinical Biometrics, Centre for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Ewoud Schuit
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Marc M J Bonten
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Department of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Darren L Dahly
- HRB Clinical Research Facility, Cork, Ireland
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Johanna A A Damen
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Thomas P A Debray
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Valentijn M T de Jong
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Maarten De Vos
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Electrical Engineering, ESAT Stadius, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Paul Dhiman
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Maria C Haller
- Section for Clinical Biometrics, Centre for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Ordensklinikum Linz, Hospital Elisabethinen, Department of Nephrology, Linz, Austria
| | - Michael O Harhay
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center and Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Liesbet Henckaerts
- Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Transplantation, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of General Internal Medicine, KU Leuven-University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Pauline Heus
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Michael Kammer
- Section for Clinical Biometrics, Centre for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Nephrology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Nina Kreuzberger
- Evidence-Based Oncology, Department I of Internal Medicine and Centre for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Dusseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Anna Lohmann
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Kim Luijken
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Jie Ma
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Glen P Martin
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - David J McLernon
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Constanza L Andaur Navarro
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Johannes B Reitsma
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Jamie C Sergeant
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
- Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Chunhu Shi
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Department of Nephrology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Luc J M Smits
- Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Peter Debyeplein 1, 6229 HA Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Kym I E Snell
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Matthew Sperrin
- Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - René Spijker
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health, Medical Library, Netherlands
| | - Ewout W Steyerberg
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Toshihiko Takada
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Ioanna Tzoulaki
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College London School of Public Health, London, UK
- Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina Medical School, Ioannina, Greece
| | - Sander M J van Kuijk
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Bas van Bussel
- Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Peter Debyeplein 1, 6229 HA Maastricht, Netherlands
- Department of Intensive Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Iwan C C van der Horst
- Department of Intensive Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Florien S van Royen
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Jan Y Verbakel
- EPI-Centre, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Christine Wallisch
- Section for Clinical Biometrics, Centre for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Jack Wilkinson
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Lotty Hooft
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Karel G M Moons
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Maarten van Smeden
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|