Incidence studies of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) are important for describing the disease's burden and for shedding light on the disease's etiology. The purposes of this study were to conduct a systematic review of the incidence studies of PSC with a meta-analysis and to investigate possible geographic variations and temporal trends in the incidence of the disease. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE (1950MEDLINE ( -2010 and Embase (1980Embase ( -2010 was conducted to identify studies investigating the incidence of PSC. The incidence of PSC was summarized with an incidence rate (IR) and 95% confidence intervals. The test of heterogeneity was performed with the Q statistic. Secondary variables extracted from the articles included the following: the method of case ascertainment, the country, the time period, the age, the male/female incidence rate ratio (IRR), and the incidence of PSC subtypes (smallduct or large-duct PSC and inflammatory bowel disease). Stratified and sensitivity analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity between studies and to assess effects of study quality. Time trends were used to explore differences in the incidence across time. The search retrieved 1669 potentially eligible citations; 8 studies met the inclusion criteria. According to a random-effects model, the pooled IR was 0.77 (0.45-1.09) per 100,000 person-years. However, significant heterogeneity was observed between studies (P < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses excluding non-population-based studies increased the overall IR to 1.00 (0.82-1.17) and eliminated the heterogeneity between studies (P 5 0.08). The IRR for males versus females was 1.70 (1.34-2.07), and the median age was 41 years (35-47 years). All studies investigating time trends reported an overall increase in the incidence of PSC. Conclusion: The incidence of PSC is similar in North American and European countries and continues to increase over time. Incidence data from developing countries are lacking, and this limits our understanding of the global incidence of PSC. (HEPATOLOGY 2011;53:1590-1599

ImportanceAt the turn of the 21st century, studies evaluating the change in incidence of appendicitis over time have reported inconsistent findings.ObjectivesWe compared the differences in the incidence of appendicitis derived from a pathology registry versus an administrative database in order to validate coding in administrative databases and establish temporal trends in the incidence of appendicitis.DesignWe conducted a population-based comparative cohort study to identify all individuals with appendicitis from 2000 to2008.Setting & ParticipantsTwo population-based data sources were used to identify cases of appendicitis: 1) a pathology registry (n = 8,822); and 2) a hospital discharge abstract database (n = 10,453).Intervention & Main OutcomeThe administrative database was compared to the pathology registry for the following a priori analyses: 1) to calculate the positive predictive value (PPV) of administrative codes; 2) to compare the annual incidence of appendicitis; and 3) to assess differences in temporal trends. Temporal trends were assessed using a generalized linear model that assumed a Poisson distribution and reported as an annual percent change (APC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Analyses were stratified by perforated and non-perforated appendicitis.ResultsThe administrative database (PPV = 83.0%) overestimated the incidence of appendicitis (100.3 per 100,000) when compared to the pathology registry (84.2 per 100,000). Codes for perforated appendicitis were not reliable (PPV = 52.4%) leading to overestimation in the incidence of perforated appendicitis in the administrative database (34.8 per 100,000) as compared to the pathology registry (19.4 per 100,000). The incidence of appendicitis significantly increased over time in both the administrative database (APC = 2.1%; 95% CI: 1.3, 2.8) and pathology registry (APC = 4.1; 95% CI: 3.1, 5.0).Conclusion & RelevanceThe administrative database overestimated the incidence of appendicitis, particularly among perforated appendicitis. Therefore, studies utilizing administrative data to analyze perforated appendicitis should be interpreted cautiously.

Suspicion for acute aortic dissection should be raised with hypotension, pulse, or neurologic deficit. Conversely, a low AHA ADD score decreases suspicion. Clinical gestalt informed by high- and low-risk features together with an absence of an alternative diagnosis should drive investigation for acute aortic dissection.

Objective Having shown promise in other medical fields, we sought to determine whether machine learning (ML) models perform better than usual care in diagnostic and prognostic prediction for emergency department (ED) patients. Methods In this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Central, and CINAHL from inception to October 17, 2019. We included studies comparing diagnostic and prognostic prediction of ED patients by ML models to usual care methods (triage‐based scores, clinical prediction tools, clinician judgment) using predictor variables readily available to ED clinicians. We extracted commonly reported performance metrics of model discrimination and classification. We used the PROBAST tool for risk of bias assessment (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020158129). Results The search yielded 1,656 unique records, of which 23 studies involving 16,274,647 patients were included. In all seven diagnostic studies, ML models outperformed usual care in all performance metrics. In six studies assessing in‐hospital mortality, the best‐performing ML models had better discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] =0.74–0.94) than any clinical decision tool (AUROC =0.68–0.81). In four studies assessing hospitalization, ML models had better discrimination (AUROC =0.80–0.83) than triage‐based scores (AUROC =0.68–0.82). Clinical heterogeneity precluded meta‐analysis. Most studies had high risk of bias due to lack of external validation, low event rates, and insufficient reporting of calibration. Conclusions Our review suggests that ML may have better prediction performance than usual care for ED patients with a variety of clinical presentations and outcomes. However, prediction model reporting guidelines should be followed to provide clinically applicable data. Interventional trials are needed to assess the impact of ML models on patient‐centered outcomes.

IMPORTANCE Incomplete reporting of diagnostic accuracy research impairs assessment of risk of bias and limits generalizability. Point-of-care ultrasound has become an important diagnostic tool for acute care physicians, but studies assessing its use are of varying methodological quality. OBJECTIVE To assess adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 guidelines in the literature on acute care point-of-care ultrasound. EVIDENCE REVIEW MEDLINE was searched to identify diagnostic accuracy studies assessing pointof-care ultrasound published in critical care, emergency medicine, or anesthesia journals from 2016 to 2019. Studies were evaluated for adherence to the STARD 2015 guidelines, with the following variables analyzed: journal, country, STARD citation, STARD-adopting journal, impact factor, patient population, use of supplemental material, and body region. Data analysis was performed in November 2019. FINDINGS Seventy-four studies were included in this systematic review for assessment. Overall adherence to STARD was moderate, with 66% (mean [SD], 19.7 [2.9] of 30 items) of STARD items reported. Items pertaining to imaging specifications, patient population, and readers of the index test were frequently reported (>66% of studies). Items pertaining to blinding of readers to clinical data and to the index or reference standard, analysis of heterogeneity, indeterminate and missing data, and time intervals between index and reference test were either moderately (33%-66%) or infrequently (<33%) reported. Studies in STARD-adopting journals (mean [SD], 20.5 [2.9] items in adopting journals vs 18.6 [2.3] items in nonadopting journals; P = .002) and studies citing STARD (mean [SD], 21.3 [0.9] items in citing studies vs 19.5 [2.9] items in nonciting studies; P = .01) reported more items. Variation by country and journal of publication were identified. No differences in STARD adherence were identified by body region imaged (mean [SD]