ObjectiveTo systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for diagnosis of current SARS-CoV-2 infections in children under real-life conditions.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, INAHTA HTA database, preprint servers (via Europe PMC), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP from 1 January 2020 to 7 May 2021; NICE Evidence Search, NICE Guidance, FIND Website from 1 January 2020 to 24 May 2021.Review methodsDiagnostic cross-sectional or cohort studies were eligible for inclusion if they had paediatric study participants and compared rapid point-of care tests for diagnosing current SARS-CoV-2 infections with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias and the applicability of the included studies. Bivariate meta-analyses with random effects were performed. Variability was assessed by subgroup analyses.Results17 studies with a total of 6355 paediatric study participants were included. All studies compared antigen tests against RT-PCR. Overall, studies evaluated eight antigen tests from six different brands. Only one study was at low risk of bias. The pooled overall diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in paediatric populations was 64.2% (95% CI 57.4% to 70.5%) and 99.1% (95% CI 98.2% to 99.5%), respectively. In symptomatic children, the pooled diagnostic sensitivity was 71.8% (95% CI 63.6% to 78.8%) and the pooled diagnostic specificity was 98.7% (95% CI 96.6% to 99.5%). The pooled diagnostic sensitivity in asymptomatic children was 56.2% (95% CI 47.6% to 64.4%) and the pooled diagnostic specificity was 98.6% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.3%).ConclusionsThe performance of current antigen tests in paediatric populations under real-life conditions varies broadly. Relevant data were only identified for very few antigen tests on the market, and the risk of bias was mostly unclear due to poor reporting. Additionally, the most common uses of these tests in children (eg, self-testing in schools or parents testing their toddlers before kindergarten) have not been addressed in clinical performance studies yet. The observed low diagnostic sensitivity may impact the planned purpose of the broad implementation of testing programmes.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021236313.

Background Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a widely used method of wound treatment. We performed a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the patient-relevant benefits and harms of NPWT with standard wound therapy (SWT) in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention. Methods We searched for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and study registries (last search: July 2018) and screened reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and health technology assessments. Manufacturers and investigators were asked to provide unpublished data. Eligible studies investigated at least one patient-relevant outcome (e.g. wound closure). We assessed publication bias and, if feasible, performed meta-analyses, grading the results into different categories (hint, indication or proof of a greater benefit or harm). Results We identified 48 eligible studies of generally low quality with evaluable data for 4315 patients and 30 eligible studies with missing data for at least 1386 patients. Due to potential publication bias (proportion of inaccessible data, 24%), we downgraded our conclusions. A meta-analysis of all wound healing data showed a significant effect in favour of NPWT (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.13, p = 0.008). As further analyses of different definitions of wound closure did not contradict that analysis, we inferred an indication of a greater benefit of NPWT. A meta-analysis of hospital stay (in days) showed a significant difference in favour of NPWT (MD − 4.78, 95% CI − 7.79 to − 1.76, p = 0.005). As further analyses of different definitions of hospital stay/readmission did not contradict that analysis, we inferred an indication of a greater benefit of NPWT. There was neither proof (nor indication nor hint) of greater benefit or harm of NPWT for other patient-relevant outcomes such as mortality and adverse events. Conclusions In summary, low-quality data indicate a greater benefit of NPWT versus SWT for wound closure in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention. The length of hospital stay is also shortened. The data show no advantages or disadvantages of NPWT for other patient-relevant outcomes. Publication bias is an important problem in studies on NPWT, underlining that all clinical studies need to be fully reported.

Objective: To systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for diagnosis of current SARS-CoV-2 infections in children under real-life conditions. Study design: Multiple bibliographic databases including MEDLINE and Embase, clinical trial registries and further information sources were systematically searched for literature (last bibliographic search: May 7, 2021). Diagnostic cross-sectional or cohort studies that included paediatric study participants and evaluated rapid point-of care tests for diagnosing current SARS-CoV-2 infections against RT-PCR as the reference standard were eligible for inclusion. QUADAS-2 was used to assess the risk of bias and the applicability of the included studies. Bivariate meta-analyses with random effects were performed. Variability was assessed by subgroup analyses. Results: We included 17 studies with a total of 6355 paediatric study participants. All included studies compared antigen tests against RT-PCR. Only one study was at low risk of bias. The pooled overall diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in paediatric populations was 64.2% (95% CI: 57.4%-70.5%) and 99.1% (95% CI: 98.2%-99.5%), respectively. In symptomatic children, the pooled diagnostic sensitivity was 71.8% (95% CI: 63.6%-78.8%) and the pooled diagnostic specificity was 98.7% (95% CI: 96.6%-99.5%). The pooled diagnostic sensitivity in asymptomatic children was 56.2% (95% CI: 47.6%-64.4%) and the pooled diagnostic specificity was 98.6% (95% CI: 97.3%-99.3%). Conclusions: Performance of current antigen tests under real-life conditions varies broadly. Policymakers should especially be aware of the low diagnostic sensitivity of current antigen tests. Results should be interpreted with caution since risk of bias was predominantly judged as unclear due to poor reporting. Study Registration: CRD42021236313 (PROSPERO).

Medical devices play an important role in both the diagnostic and therapeutic care of patients. The hope is that particularly innovative medical devices can contribute to the improvement of patient care. However, there is no mandatory need to conduct clinical studies with medical devices that allow an assessment of their benefit within the framework of EU market access or on the way to reimbursement by the statutory health insurance (SHI) in Germany. Numerous examples show that the existing legal framework for market access and for reimbursement in the SHI system is insufficient for providing patients with only those examination and treatment methods, i. e., medical devices, that comply with the benefit requirement and the imperative for quality stipulated in the Social Code Book V. However, it is possible to conduct meaningful clinical trials, i. e., randomized controlled trials, with medical devices as well. Hence, regular, indication-related benefit assessment of medical devices with a higher risk class as a prerequisite for reimbursement for a specific medical device is not only necessary, but also feasible. The 2014 report of the Advisory Council on the Assessment of Developments in the Healthcare System contains a promising recommendation for implementing this. A regulatory framework as described in the report would allow patients the fastest possible access to safe and effective medical device innovations, while increasing planning reliability for the development and marketing of new products, which has often been criticized as insufficient by manufacturers.

ObjectiveTo assess the methodological quality of pre-market clinical studies performed on medical devices (MDs), including in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) MDs, in Europe.DesignObservational cross-sectional study.SettingA large German ethics committee.MaterialsFrom the consecutive sample of study applications between March 2010 and December 2013, we selected MD study applications requiring approval by an ethics committee and the competent federal authority. These included pre-market studies on devices that had not yet received a CE (Conformité Européenne) mark or had previously been CE marked for a different indication. Also included were post-CE studies requiring federal authority approval because the study entailed additional invasive or otherwise burdensome components.Primary and secondary outcome measuresBesides the design of the studies, we assessed the planned sample size, study duration and other aspects.Results122 study applications were analysed: 98 (80%) concerned therapeutic rather than diagnostic devices and 84 (69%) were pre-market studies. The proportion of studies on class I, IIa, IIb and III devices was 10%, 15%, 28% and 39%, respectively. 10 studies (8%) investigated IVD MDs. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) was planned in 70 (57%) of the 122 applications; studies with non-randomised control groups (n=23; 19%) or without controls (n=29; 24%) were less common. In the sub-group of pre-market studies on therapeutic devices, the proportion of RCTs was 66% (43/65). The median sample size was 120 participants or samples (IQR 53–229). The median study duration was 24 (14–38) months. 87 studies (71%) considered at least one patient-relevant outcome. 12 (17%) and 37 (53%) of the 70 RCTs applied a fully or partially blinded design, respectively.ConclusionA large proportion of MD studies in Germany apply a randomised controlled design, thus contradicting the industry argument that RCTs on MDs are commonly infeasible.