The management of major bleeding and transfusion practice is well documented in national guidance from multiple sources. The guidelines include advice on anticoagulants, antiplatelet agents and tranexamic acid. In the absence of more specific evidence, these guidelines should be applied in the management of epistaxis.
Coronary artery disease causes significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) is currently the reference standard investigation. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) complements traditional ICA by providing extra information on blood flow, which has convincingly led to better patient management and improved cost-effectiveness. Computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) is suitable for the investigation of chest pain, especially in the low- and intermediate-risk groups. FFR generated using CT data (producing FFRCT) may improve the positive predictive value of CTCA. The basic science of FFRCT is like a "black box" to most imaging professionals. A fundamental principle is that good quality CTCA is likely to make any post-processing easier and more reliable. Both diagnostic and observational studies have suggested that the accuracy and the short-term outcome of using FFRCT are both comparable with FFR in ICA. More multidisciplinary research with further refined diagnostic and longer-term observational studies will hopefully pinpoint the role of FFRCT in existing clinical pathways.
BackgroundComputed tomography (CT) biomarkers claim to improve cardiovascular risk stratification. This review focuses on significant differences in incremental measures between adequate and inadequate reporting practise.MethodsStudies included were those that used Framingham Risk Score as a baseline and described the incremental value of adding calcium score or CT coronary angiogram in predicting cardiovascular risk. Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central were performed with no language restriction.ResultsThirty five studies consisting of 206,663 patients (men = 118,114, 55.1%) were included. The baseline Framingham Risk Score included the 1998, 2002 and 2008 iterations. Selective reporting, inconsistent reference groupings and thresholds were found. Twelve studies (34.3%) had major and 23 (65.7%) had minor alterations and the respective Δ AUC were significantly different (p = 0.015). When the baseline model performed well, the Δ AUC was relatively lower with the addition of a CT biomarker (Spearman coefficient = − 0.46, p < 0.0001; n = 33; 76 pairs of data). Other factors that influenced AUC performance included exploration of data analysis, calibration, validation, multivariable and AUC documentation (all p < 0.05). Most studies (68.7%) that reported categorical NRI (n = 16; 46 pairs of data) subjectively drew strong conclusions along with other poor reporting practices. However, no significant difference in values of NRI was found between adequate and inadequate reporting.ConclusionsThe widespread practice of poor reporting particularly association, discrimination, reclassification, calibration and validation undermines the claimed incremental value of CT biomarkers over the Framingham Risk Score alone. Inadequate reporting of discrimination inflates effect estimate, however, that is not necessarily the case for reclassification.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-018-0777-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.