Overcoming the Tower of Babel in Medical Science by Finding the "EQUATOR": Research Reporting Guidelines

Delirium detection in the emergency department: A diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and screening instruments

INTRODUCTION

Geriatric emergency department (ED) guidelines emphasize timely identification of delirium. This article updates previous diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews of history, physical examination, laboratory testing, and ED screening instruments for the diagnosis of delirium as well as test-treatment thresholds for ED delirium screening.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to quantify the diagnostic accuracy of approaches to identify delirium. Studies were included if they described adults aged 60 or older evaluated in the ED setting with an index test for delirium compared with an acceptable criterion standard for delirium. Data were extracted and studies were reviewed for risk of bias. When appropriate, we conducted a meta-analysis and estimated delirium screening thresholds.

RESULTS

Full-text review was performed on 55 studies and 27 were included in the current analysis. No studies were identified exploring the accuracy of findings on history or laboratory analysis. While two studies reported clinicians accurately rule in delirium, clinician gestalt is inadequate to rule out delirium. We report meta-analysis on three studies that quantified the accuracy of the 4 A's Test (4AT) to rule in (pooled positive likelihood ratio [LR+] 7.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.7-20.7) and rule out (pooled negative likelihood ratio [LR-] 0.18, 95% CI 0.09-0.34) delirium. We also conducted meta-analysis of two studies that quantified the accuracy of the Abbreviated Mental Test-4 (AMT-4) and found that the pooled LR+ (4.3, 95% CI 2.4-7.8) was lower than that observed for the 4AT, but the pooled LR- (0.22, 95% CI 0.05-1) was similar. Based on one study the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) is the superior instrument to rule in delirium. The calculated test threshold is 2% and the treatment threshold is 11%.

CONCLUSIONS

The quantitative accuracy of history and physical examination to identify ED delirium is virtually unexplored. The 4AT has the largest quantity of ED-based research. Other screening instruments may more accurately rule in or rule out delirium. If the goal is to rule in delirium then the CAM-ICU or brief CAM or modified CAM for the ED are superior instruments, although the accuracy of these screening tools are based on single-center studies. To rule out delirium, the Delirium Triage Screen is superior based on one single-center study.

Change over Five Years in Important Measures of Methodological Quality and Reporting in Randomized Cardiovascular Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our current study was to analyze whether the use of important measures of methodological quality and reporting of randomized clinical trials published in the field of cardiovascular disease research haschanged over time. A furtheraim was to investigate whether there was an improvement over time in the ability of these trials to provide a good estimate of the true intervention effect.

METHODS

We conducted two searches in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTAL) database to identify randomized cardiovascular clinical trials published in either 2012 or 2017. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) trials in cardiovascular disease research with adult participants were eligible to be included. We randomly selected 250 RCTs for publication years 2012 and 2017. Trial characteristics, data on measures of methodological quality, and reporting were extracted and the risk of bias for each trial was assessed.

RESULTS

As compared to 2012, in 2017 there were significant improvements in the reporting of the presence of a data monitoring committee (42.0% in 2017 compared to 34.4% in 2012; p < 0.001), and a positive change in registering randomized cardiovascular disease research in clinical trial registries (78.4% in 2017 compared to 68.9% in 2012; p = 0.03). We also observed that significantly more RCTs reported sample size calculation (60.4% in 2017 compared to 49.6% in 2012; p < 0.01) in 2017 as compared to 2012. RCTs in 2017 were more likely to have a low overall risk of bias (RoB) than in 2012 (29.2% in 2017 compared to 21.2% in 2012; p < 0.01). However, fewer 2017 RCTs were rated low (50.8% compared to 65.6%; p < 0.001) risk for blinding of participants and personnel, for blinding of outcome assessors (82.4% compared to 90.8%; p < 0.001), and selective outcome reporting (62.8% compared to 80.0%; <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

As compared to 2012, in 2017 there were significant improvements in some, but not all, the important measures of methodological quality. Although more trials in the field of cardiovascular disease research had a lower overall RoB in 2017, the improvement over time was not consistently perceived in all RoB domains.

A review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to2018

Background

Reproducibility is essential for the integrity of scientific research. Reproducibility is measured by the ability of different investigators to replicate the outcomes of an original publication using the same materials and procedures. Unfortunately, reproducibility is not currently a standard being met by most scientific research.

Methods

For this review, we sampled 300 publications in the field of urology to assess for 14 indicators of reproducibility including material availability, raw data availability, analysis script availability, pre-registration information, links to protocols, and if the publication was available free to the public. Publications were also assessed for statements about conflicts of interest and funding sources.

Results

Of the 300 sample publications, 171 contained empirical data available for analysis of reproducibility. Of the 171 articles with empirical data to analyze, 0.58% provided links to protocols, 4.09% provided access to raw data, 3.09% provided access to materials, and 4.68% were pre-registered. None of the studies provided analysis scripts. Our review is cross-sectional in nature, including only PubMed indexed journals-published in English-and within a finite time period. Thus, our results should be interpreted in light of these considerations.

Conclusion

Current urology research does not consistently provide the components needed to reproduce original studies. Collaborative efforts from investigators and journal editors are needed to improve research quality while minimizing waste and patient risk.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12894-022-01059-8.

Trends in Geriatric Emergency Medicine

Geriatric emergency medicine has emerged as a subspecialty of emergency medicine over the past 25 years. This emergence has seen the development of increases in training opportunities, care delivery strategies, collaborative best practice guidelines, and formal geriatric emergency department accreditation. This multidisciplinary field remains ripe for continued development in the coming decades as the aging US population parallels a call from patients, health care providers, and health systems to improve the delivery of high-value care. This article educates emergency medicine practitioners and highlights high-value care practice trends to inform and prioritize decision-making for this unique patient population.

Delirium Prevention, Detection, and Treatment in Emergency Medicine Settings: A Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research (GEAR) Network Scoping Review and Consensus Statement

BACKGROUND

Older adult delirium is often unrecognized in the emergency department (ED), yet the most compelling research questions to overcome knowledge-to-practice deficits remain undefined. The Geriatric Emergency care Applied Research (GEAR) Network was organized to identify and prioritize delirium clinical questions.

METHODS

GEAR identified and engaged 49 transdisciplinary stakeholders including emergency physicians, geriatricians, nurses, social workers, pharmacists, and patient advocates. Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews, clinical questions were derived, medical librarian electronic searches were conducted, and applicable research evidence was synthesized for ED delirium detection, prevention, and management. The scoping review served as the foundation for a consensus conference to identify the highest priority research foci.

RESULTS

In the scoping review, 27 delirium detection "instruments" were described in 48 ED studies and used variable criterion standards with the result of delirium prevalence ranging from 6% to 38%. Clinician gestalt was the most common "instrument" evaluated with sensitivity ranging from 0% to 81% and specificity from 65% to 100%. For delirium management, 15 relevant studies were identified, including one randomized controlled trial. Some intervention studies targeted clinicians via education and others used clinical pathways. Three medications were evaluated to reduce or prevent ED delirium. No intervention consistently prevented or treated delirium. After reviewing the scoping review results, the GEAR stakeholders identified ED delirium prevention interventions not reliant on additional nurse or physician effort as the highest priority research.

CONCLUSIONS

Transdisciplinary stakeholders prioritize ED delirium prevention studies that are not reliant on health care worker tasks instead of alternative research directions such as defining etiologic delirium phenotypes to target prevention or intervention strategies.

An Evaluation of Reporting Guidelines and Clinical Trial Registry Requirements Among Addiction Medicine Journals

Context

Robust methodology and ethical reporting are paramount for quality scientific research, but recently, that quality in addiction research has been questioned. Avenues to improve such research quality include adherence to reporting guidelines and proper usage of clinical trial registries. Reporting guidelines and clinical trial registries have been shown to lead researchers to more ethical and transparent methodology.

Objectives

To investigate the reporting guideline and clinical trial registration policies of addiction research journals and identify areas of improvement.

Methods

We used Google Scholar Metrics' h-5 index to identify the top 20 addiction research journals. We then examined the instructions for authors from each journal to identify whether they required, recommended, or made no mention of trial registration and reporting guidelines, including the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Case Reports (CARE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR), Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE), Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT), Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ), Transparent Reporting of a Multivariate Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines. We performed the same analysis regarding requirements for clinical trial registration.

Results

Of the 20 journals included in this study, 10 journals (50%) did not require adherence to any reporting guidelines. Trial registration followed a similar trend; 15 journals (75%) did not mention any form of trial or systematic review registration, and ClinicalTrials.gov was only recommended by only 1 journal (5%).

Conclusions

Among top addiction medicine journals, required adherence to reporting guidelines and clinical trial registry policies remains substandard. A step toward fulfilling the National Institute on Drug Abuses' call for improvement in transparency and reproducibility within addiction research should include all journals adopting a strict reporting guideline and clinical trial registry adherence policy.

Diagnosing COVID-19 in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review of Clinical Examinations, Laboratory Tests, Imaging Accuracy, and Biases

OBJECTIVE

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged as a global pandemic in early 2020 with rapidly evolving approaches to diagnosing the clinical illness called coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The primary objective of this scoping review is to synthesize current research of the diagnostic accuracy of history, physical examination, routine laboratory tests, real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), immunology tests, and computed tomography (CT) for the emergency department (ED) diagnosis of COVID-19. Secondary objectives included a synopsis of diagnostic biases likely with current COVID-19 research as well as corresponding implications of false-negative and false-positive results for clinicians and investigators.

METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR)-adherent synthesis of COVID-19 diagnostic accuracy through May 5, 2020, was conducted. The search strategy was designed by a medical librarian and included studies indexed by PubMed and Embase since January 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 1,907 citations were screened for relevance. Patients without COVID-19 are rarely reported, so specificity and likelihood ratios were generally unavailable. Fever is the most common finding, while hyposmia and hypogeusia appear useful to rule in COVID-19. Cough is not consistently present. Lymphopenia is the mostly commonly reported laboratory abnormality and occurs in over 50% of COVID-19 patients. rRT-PCR is currently considered the COVID-19 criterion standard for most diagnostic studies, but a single test sensitivity ranges from 60% to 78%. Multiple reasons for false-negatives rRT-PCR exist, including sample site tested and disease stage during which sample was obtained. CT may increase COVID-19 sensitivity in conjunction with rRT-PCR, but guidelines for imaging patients most likely to benefit are emerging. IgM and IgG serology levels are undetectable in the first week of COVID-19, but sensitivity (range = 82% to 100%) and specificity (range = 87% to 100%) are promising. Whether detectable COVID-19 antibodies correspond to immunity remains unanswered. Current studies do not adhere to accepted diagnostic accuracy reporting standards and likely report significantly biased results if the same tests were to be applied to general ED populations with suspected COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

With the exception of fever and disorders of smell/taste, history and physical examination findings are unhelpful to distinguish COVID-19 from other infectious conditions that mimic SARS-CoV-2 like influenza. Routine laboratory tests are also nondiagnostic, although lymphopenia is a common finding and other abnormalities may predict severe disease. Although rRT-PCR is the current criterion standard, more inclusive consensus-based criteria will likely emerge because of the high false-negative rate of PCR tests. The role of serology and CT in ED assessments remains undefined.

Point-of-Care Ocular Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Retinal Detachment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Ocular complaints are common presentations to the emergency department (ED). Among these, retinal detachment can cause significant vision loss if not rapidly diagnosed and referred for appropriate treatment. Point-of-care ultrasound has been suggested to identify the diagnosis rapidly when the ocular examination is limited or the ophthalmology service is not readily available. However, prior studies were limited by small sample sizes, resulting in wide ranges of potential accuracy. The primary outcome for this review was to determine the test characteristics of point-of-care ocular ultrasound for the diagnosis of retinal detachment.

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, LILACS, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and bibliographies of selected articles were assessed for all prospective and randomized controlled trials assessing the accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound for identifying retinal detachment. Data were dual extracted into a predefined worksheet and quality analysis was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Data were summarized and a meta-analysis was performed with planned subgroup analyses by location and provider specialty. This review was registered with PROSPERO CRD42018097288. There was no funding for this review.

RESULTS

Eleven studies (n = 844 patients) were identified. Overall, ultrasound was 94.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 78.4% to 98.6%) sensitive and 96.3% (95% CI = 89.2% to 98.8%) specific for the diagnosis of retinal detachment with a positive likelihood ratio of 25.2 (95% CI = 8.1 to 78.0) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.06 (95% CI = 0.01 to 0.25). Subgroup analysis found that ultrasound was more accurate among ED patients, but was not significantly different when performed by ED or non-ED providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Point-of-care ocular ultrasound is sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of retinal detachment. Future studies should determine the ideal training protocol and the influence of color Doppler and contrast-enhanced ultrasound on diagnostic accuracy.

The diagnostic accuracy of a point-of-care ultrasound protocol for shock etiology: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of a point-of-care ultrasound exam for undifferentiated shock in patients presenting to the emergency department.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and research meeting abstracts were searched from 1966 to June 2018 for relevant studies. QUADAS-2 was used to assess study quality, and meta-analysis was conducted to pool performance data of individual categories of shock.

RESULTS

A total of 5,097 non-duplicated studies were identified, of which 58 underwent full-text review; 4 were included for analysis. Study quality by QUADAS-2 was considered overall a low risk of bias. Pooled positive likelihood ratio values ranged from 8.25 (95% CI 3.29 to 20.69) for hypovolemic shock to 40.54 (95% CI 12.06 to 136.28) for obstructive shock. Pooled negative likelihood ratio values ranged from 0.13 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.48) for obstructive shock to 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.62) for mixed-etiology shock.

CONCLUSION

The rapid ultrasound for shock and hypotension (RUSH) exam performs better when used to rule in causes of shock, rather than to definitively exclude specific etiologies. The negative likelihood ratios of the exam by subtype suggest that it most accurately rules out obstructive shock.

Blunt Thoracolumbar-Spine Trauma Evaluation in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy for History, Physical Examination, and Imaging

BACKGROUND

Delayed diagnoses of unstable thoracolumbar spine (TL-spine) fractures can result in neurologic deficits and avoidable pain, so it is important for clinicians to reach prompt diagnostic decisions. There are no validated decision aids for determining which trauma patients warrant TL-spine imaging.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to quantify the diagnostic accuracy of the injury mechanism, physical examination, associated injuries, clinical decision aids, and imaging for evaluating blunt TL-spine trauma patients.

METHODS

A search strategy for studies including adult blunt TL-spine trauma using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed. Excluded studies lacked data to construct 2 × 2 tables, were duplicates, were not primary research, did not focus on blunt trauma, examined associated injuries without any utility in identifying TL-spine injuries, only studied cervical-spine fractures, were non-English, had a pediatric setting, or were cadaver/autopsy reports. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Diagnostic predictors were analyzed with a meta-analysis of sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios.

RESULTS

In blunt trauma patients in the emergency department, the weighted pretest probability of a TL-spine fracture was 15%. The estimates for detection of TL-spine fractures with plain film were: positive likelihood ratio (+LR) = 25.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-152.2; I² = 94%; p < 0.001) and negative likelihood ratio (-LR) = 0.43 (95% CI 0.32-0.59; I² = 84%; p < 0.001), and for computed tomography (CT) were: +LR = 81.1 (95% CI 14.1-467.9; I² = 87%; p < 0.001) and -LR = 0.04 (95% CI 0.02-0.08; I² = 23%; p = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

CT is more accurate than plain films for detecting TL-spine fractures. Injury mechanism, physical examination, and associated injuries alone are not accurate to rule-in or rule-out TL-spine fractures.

Trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines in cardiovascular journals

Objective

This study investigated the policies of cardiac and cardiovascular system journals concerning clinical trial registration and guideline adoption to understand how frequently journals use these mechanisms to improve transparency, trial reporting and overall study quality.

Methods

We selected the top 20 (by impact factor) journals cited in the subcategory ‘Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems’ of the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2014 Journal Citation Reports to extract journal policies concerning the 17 guidelines we identified. In addition, trial and systematic review registration adherence statements were extracted. 300 randomised controlled trials published in 2016 in the top 20 journals were searched for clinical trial registry numbers and CONSORT diagrams.

Results

Of the 19 cardiac and cardiovascular system journals included in our analysis, eight journals (42%) did not require or recommend trial or review registration. Seven (37%) did not recommend or require a single guideline within their instructions to authors. Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials guidelines (10/19, 53%) were recommended or required most often. Of the trials surveyed, 122/285 (42.8%) published a CONSORT diagram in their manuscript, while 236/292 (80.8%) published a trial registry number.

Discussion

Cardiac and cardiovascular system journals infrequently require, recommend or enforce the use of reporting guidelines. Furthermore, too few require or enforce the use of clinical trial registration. Cardiology journal editors should consider guideline adoption due to their potential to limit bias and increase transparency.