Computed tomography is probably more accurate than ultrasonography for diagnosing appendicitis in adults and adolescents. Prospective studies that apply gold standard diagnostic testing to all study participants would more reliably estimate the true diagnostic accuracy of these tests.
For low- to intermediate-risk advanced-stage HL, FDG-PET performed after a few cycles of standard chemotherapy seems to be a reliable prognostic test to identify poor responders, warranting prospective studies to assess PET-based treatment strategies. For DLBCL, no reliable conclusions can be drawn due to heterogeneity. Interim PET remains an unproven test for routine clinical practice. Its use should be reserved for research settings where treatment regimens and imaging conditions are standardized.
Nonparoxysmal AF may be a clinically useful proxy for a combination of confounded variables, none of which alone is an independent predictor of AF recurrence. Evaluation of predictors was limited by exclusion of patients with severe heart disease or at the age extremes; thus, the evidence may not be as applicable to these populations.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Studies have assessed PET by using various tracers to diagnose disease recurrence in patients with previously treated glioma; however, the accuracy of these methods, particularly compared with alternative imaging modalities, remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to quantitatively synthesize the diagnostic accuracy of PET and compare it with alternative imaging modalities.
BackgroundTo identify high-risk groups for gastric cancer in presumptively healthy populations, several studies have investigated the predictive ability of the pepsinogen test, H. Pylori antibodies, and a risk-prediction model based on these two tests. To investigate whether these tests accurately predict gastric cancer development, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsPubMed and other electronic databases were searched for cohort studies published in English or Japanese from January 1985 through December 2013. Six reviewers identified eligible studies, and at least two investigators extracted data on population and study-design characteristics, quality items, and outcomes of interest. Meta-analyses were performed on non-overlapping studies.ResultsNine prospective cohorts from Eastern Asia reported in 12 publications, including 33,741 asymptomatic middle-aged participants of gastric cancer screening, were eligible. For discriminating between asymptomatic adults at high and low risk of gastric cancer, the pepsinogen test (summary hazard ratio [HR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7–4.7; I2 = 0%) and H. pylori antibodies (summary HR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.0–5.2; I2 = 0%) were statistically significant predictors as standalone tests. Although the risk-prediction model was in general moderately accurate in separating asymptomatic adults into four risk groups (summary c-statistic, 0.71; 95% CI: 0.68–0.73; I2 = 7%), calibration seemed to be poor. The study validity was generally limited.ConclusionsThe serum pepsinogen test, H. pylori antibodies, and the four-risk-group model for predicting gastric cancer development seem to have the potential to stratify middle-aged presumptively healthy adults. Future research needs to focus on comparative studies to evaluate the impact of screening programs adopting these tests. Also, validation, preferably with model updating, is necessary to see whether the current model performance is transferable to different populations.
Evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of charged-particle radiation therapy in cancer is needed to assess the benefits, risks, and costs of treatment alternatives.
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.