How to optimize the systematic review process using AI tools.

Systematic reviews are a cornerstone for synthesizing the available evidence on a given topic. They simultaneously allow for gaps in the literature to be identified and provide direction for future research. However, due to the ever-increasing volume and complexity of the available literature, traditional methods for conducting systematic reviews are less efficient and more time-consuming. Numerous artificial intelligence (AI) tools are being released with the potential to optimize efficiency in academic writing and assist with various stages of the systematic review process including developing and refining search strategies, screening titles and abstracts for inclusion or exclusion criteria, extracting essential data from studies and summarizing findings. Therefore, in this article we provide an overview of the currently available tools and how they can be incorporated into the systematic review process to improve efficiency and quality of research synthesis. We emphasize that authors must report all AI tools that have been used at each stage to ensure replicability as part of reporting in methods.

On the value of meta-research for early career researchers: A commentary.

Meta-research, also known as "research on research" is a field of study that investigates the methods, reporting, reproducibility, evaluation, and incentives along the research continuum. Meta-research literacy is imperative to ensure high quality, transparent and reproducible primary data or meta-research products. In this commentary, we propose that early career researchers should be trained in meta-research as a foundation to develop a deeper understanding of the research process and ability to appraise the research literature and design high-quality original studies, irrespective of their chosen field of study. We discuss the importance of meta-research and open science from the perspective of an early career trainee, highlighting essential areas for growth and obstacles one may encounter.

High-Dose Buprenorphine Initiation: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to review and synthesize the literature on high-dose buprenorphine initiation (>12-mg total dose on day of initiation). METHODS: A scoping review of literature about high-dose buprenorphine initiation was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central were searched. Randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case studies/reports published in English before February 13, 2023, were included. RESULTS: Fifteen studies reporting outcomes from 580 high-dose buprenorphine initiations were included. Eight studies were in inpatient settings, 3 in emergency departments, 3 in outpatient settings, and 1 in a first-responder setting. Four studies reported high-dose initiations among individuals exposed to fentanyl. There were no reported events of fatal or nonfatal overdose or respiratory depression, although adverse event reporting was inconsistent in published reports. The most reported side effects with high-dose buprenorphine initiation were nausea or vomiting (n = 17) and precipitated withdrawal (n = 7). The most serious reported adverse event was hypotension requiring oral hydration (n = 2). Most studies reported improvements in subjective or objective withdrawal symptoms. The duration of follow-up ranged from none to 8 months. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose buprenorphine initiation has not been associated with reported cases of overdose or respiratory depression. However, the current literature about high-dose buprenorphine is limited by inconsistent side effect reporting, limited power to detect rare safety events such as respiratory depression, limited follow-up data, and few comparison studies between high-dose and regular initiation protocols. Further prospective data are needed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of this initiation strategy.

Interventions to prevent and treat delirium: An umbrella review of randomized controlled trials.

Delirium is a common condition across different settings and populations. The interventions for preventing and managing this condition are still poorly known. The aim of this umbrella review is to synthesize and grade all preventative and therapeutic interventions for delirium. We searched five databases from database inception up to March 15th, 2023 and we included meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to decrease the risk of/the severity of delirium. From 1959 records after deduplication, we included 59 systematic reviews with meta-analyses, providing 110 meta-analytic estimates across populations, interventions, outcomes, settings, and age groups (485 unique RCTs, 172,045 participants). In surgery setting, for preventing delirium, high GRADE evidence supported dexmedetomidine (RR=0.53; 95%CI: 0.46-0.67, k=13, N=3988) and comprehensive geriatric assessment (OR=0.46; 95%CI=0.32-0.67, k=3, N=496) in older adults, dexmedetomidine in adults (RR=0.33, 95%CI=0.24-0.45, k=7, N=1974), A2-adrenergic agonists after induction of anesthesia (OR= 0.28, 95%CI= 0.19-0.40, k=10, N=669) in children. High certainty evidence did not support melatonergic agents in older adults for delirium prevention. Moderate certainty supported the effect of dexmedetomidine in adults and children (k=4), various non-pharmacological interventions in adults and older people (k=4), second-generation antipsychotics in adults and mixed age groups (k=3), EEG-guided anesthesia in adults (k=2), mixed pharmacological interventions (k=1), five other specific pharmacological interventions in children (k=1 each). In conclusion, our work indicates that effective treatments to prevent delirium differ across populations, settings, and age groups. Results inform future guidelines to prevent or treat delirium, accounting for safety and costs of interventions. More research is needed in non-surgical settings.

Chronic high-dose dimenhydrinate use contributing to early multifactorial cognitive impairment.

Dimenhydrinate is an over-the-counter antihistaminergic medication with anticholinergic properties used to treat nausea or motion sickness worldwide. There is a well-established correlation between the use of anticholinergic medications and dementia, however, it is unclear if a causal role exists. We report a case of minor neurocognitive disorder in a woman in her 40s with several years of high-dose daily dimenhydrinate abuse who subsequently developed significant delusional beliefs. Her clinical presentation was confounded by numerous other factors that could have impacted her cognition, such as a longstanding presumed learning disability, ankylosing spondylitis with adalimumab treatment, extensive cannabis use or potential development of a primary psychotic disorder. Her workup was within normal limits, and she has not responded to first-line antipsychotic medications to date. This case report adds to the growing evidence supporting concerns about potentially irreversible cognitive deficits in chronic misuse of anticholinergic agents, an association previously observed only in the elderly population.

Physical activity, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt and death among individuals with mental or other medical disorders: A systematic review of observational studies.

A growing body of research has demonstrated the potential role for physical activity as an intervention across mental and other medical disorders. However, the association between physical activity and suicidal ideation, attempts, and deaths has not been systematically appraised in clinical samples. We conducted a PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for observational studies investigating the influence of physical activity on suicidal behavior up to December 6, 2023. Of 116 eligible full-text studies, seven (n = 141691) were included. Depression was the most frequently studied mental condition (43%, k = 3), followed by chronic pain as the most common other medical condition (29%, k = 2). Two case-control studies examined suicide attempts and found an association between physical activity and a reduced frequency of such attempts. However, in studies examining suicidal ideation (k = 3) or suicide deaths (k = 2), no consistent associations with physical activity were observed. Overall, our systematic review found that physical activity may be linked to a lower frequency of suicide attempts in non-prospective studies involving individuals with mental disorders.

Influence of pulmonary rehabilitation on symptoms of anxiety and depression in interstitial lung disease: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) cause fibrosis of lung parenchyma, leading to impaired quality of life, dyspnea, and functional decline. Individuals with ILD experience a high prevalence of anxiety and depression. Recent research has demonstrated pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) alleviates symptoms of anxiety and depression in those with COPD. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the influence of PR on symptoms of anxiety and depression in individuals with ILD? STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a PRISMA-2020-compliant systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating PR's effect on anxiety and depression in patients with ILD. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PsycINFO from inception until April 3, 2023. A narrative synthesis was conducted where a quantitative approach was not feasible. RESULTS: Five RCTs (n = 281) were included. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) was the most common type of ILD (k = 3). One study reported clinically-significant improvements in symptoms of anxiety among patients with IPF, and two studies for symptoms of depression among patients with sarcoidosis. Dropout rates were similar between intervention and control groups. All studies were at a high risk of bias. INTERPRETATION: Pulmonary rehabilitation is not detrimental to anxiety or depression for patients with ILD, and may improve symptoms of anxiety in IPF and depression in sarcoidosis. However, no conclusion can be drawn from available evidence, which is limited by heterogeneous populations/interventions, sample sizes and unexpectedly low prevalences of clinically-significant anxiety or depression. Further adequately powered RCTs that focus on anxiety and depressive symptoms as primary outcomes are needed.

Beyond Psilocybin: Reviewing the Therapeutic Potential of Other Serotonergic Psychedelics in Mental and Substance Use Disorders.

There has been a resurgence of interest in the use of psychedelic therapies for several mental and substance use disorders. Psilocybin, a "classic" serotonergic psychedelic, has emerged as one of the primary compounds of interest in clinical research. While research on psilocybin's potential mental health benefits has grown, data on the safety and efficacy of other serotonergic psychedelics remain limited. A comprehensive scoping review on the use of mescaline, ibogaine, ayahuasca, N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT), and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) in the treatment of mental and substance disorders was conducted. Independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts and conducted data extraction. Seventy-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 43 studies of LSD, 24 studies of ayahuasca, 5 studies of DMT, 5 studies of ibogaine, and 5 studies of mescaline. Commonly reported benefits included improved mood and anxiety symptoms, improved insight, reduced substance use, improved relationships, and decreased vegetative symptoms. Commonly reported adverse effects were psychological, neurological, physical, and gastrointestinal in nature. Serious adverse events (homicide and suicide) were reported in published studies of LSD. In conclusion, there is only low-level evidence to support the safety and efficacy of non-psilocybin serotonergic psychedelics in individuals with mental and substance use disorders.

The effect of exercise on suicidal ideation and behaviors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Although exercise may positively impact those with mental or other medical illnesses, there is a lack of understanding on how it influences suicidal ideation or risk. METHODS: We conducted a PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PsycINFO from inception to June 21, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating exercise and suicidal ideation in subjects with mental or physical conditions were included. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. The primary outcome was suicidal ideation. We assessed bias of studies with risk of bias 2 tool. RESULTS: We identified 17 RCTs encompassing 1021 participants. Depression was the most included condition (71 %, k = 12). Mean follow up was 10.0 weeks (SD = 5.2). Post-intervention suicidal ideation (SMD = -1.09, CI -3.08-0.90, p = 0.20, k = 5) was not significantly different between exercise and control groups. Suicide attempts were significantly reduced in participants randomized to exercise interventions as compared to inactive controls (OR = 0.23, CI 0.09-0.67, p = 0.04, k = 2). Fourteen studies (82 %) were at high risk of bias. LIMITATIONS: This meta-analysis is limited by few, underpowered and heterogenous studies. CONCLUSION: Overall, our meta-analysis did not find a significant decrease in suicidal ideation or mortality between exercise and control groups. However, exercise did significantly decrease suicide attempts. Results should be considered preliminary, and more and larger studies assessing suicidality in RCTs testing exercise are needed.

Is There Evidence of P-Hacking in Imaging Research?

BACKGROUND: P-hacking, the tendency to run selective analyses until they become significant, is prevalent in many scientific disciplines. PURPOSE: This study aims to assess if p-hacking exists in imaging research. METHODS: Protocol, data, and code available here https://osf.io/xz9ku/?view_only=a9f7c2d841684cb7a3616f567db273fa. We searched imaging journals Ovid MEDLINE from 1972 to 2021. Text mining using Python script was used to collect metadata: journal, publication year, title, abstract, and P-values from abstracts. One P-value was randomly sampled per abstract. We assessed for evidence of p-hacking using a p-curve, by evaluating for a concentration of P-values just below .05. We conducted a one-tailed binomial test (α = .05 level of significance) to assess whether there were more P-values falling in the upper range (e.g., .045 < P < .05) than in the lower range (e.g., .04 < P < .045). To assess variation in results introduced by our random sampling of a single P-value per abstract, we repeated the random sampling process 1000 times and pooled results across the samples. Analysis was done (divided into 10-year periods) to determine if p-hacking practices evolved over time. RESULTS: Our search of 136 journals identified 967,981 abstracts. Text mining identified 293,687 P-values, and a total of 4105 randomly sampled P-values were included in the p-hacking analysis. The number of journals and abstracts that were included in the analysis as a fraction and percentage of the total number was, respectively, 108/136 (80%) and 4105/967,981 (.4%). P-values did not concentrate just under .05; in fact, there were more P-values falling in the lower range (e.g., .04 < P < .045) than falling just below .05 (e.g., .045 < P < .05), indicating lack of evidence for p-hacking. Time trend analysis did not identify p-hacking in any of the five 10-year periods. CONCLUSION: We did not identify evidence of p-hacking in abstracts published in over 100 imaging journals since 1972. These analyses cannot detect all forms of p-hacking, and other forms of bias may exist in imaging research such as publication bias and selective outcome reporting.

Changes in Attitudes and Confidence in the Integration of Psychiatry in Other Areas of Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: The authors describe how attitudes and confidence in the integration of psychiatry into other areas of medicine change over time during clinical clerkship in medical school. METHODS: From January 2015 to December 2016, medical students from the University of Iowa were recruited for a prospective study of changes in the Attitudes and Confidence in the Integration of Psychiatry Scale (ACIP) scale. The survey instrument was completed before their psychiatry clerkship, after the clerkship, and at the end of the year following that and other clinical clerkships. Other information such as gender, time spent in clerkship, USMLE Step 1 score, and clerkship grades was also collected. RESULTS: A total of 172 surveys were completed by 138 students. The ACIP score was significantly higher at the end of the participants' clinical clerkship (67.2 to 76.6; t=-7.72, p<0.0001). Of the two ACIP subscales, confidence increased significantly (25.6 to 33.3; t=-9.82, p<0.0001), but attitudes toward integration of psychiatry did not (41.7 to 43.4; t=-1.96, p=0.059). Similar findings were seen in the subset of 34 students for whom pre- and post-clerkship data could be matched. CONCLUSIONS: At the end of their clinical clerkship, medical students feel more confident providing psychiatric care. The lack of significant increase in the ACIP scale's attitude subscale either demonstrates that attitude scores going into clerkship were already high and did not deteriorate, or highlights an area for clerkship curriculum development.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Our March 2021 edition of this review showed thoracic imaging computed tomography (CT) to be sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia. This new edition is an update of the review. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in people with suspected COVID-19; assess the rate of positive imaging in people who had an initial reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negative result and a positive RT-PCR result on follow-up; and evaluate the accuracy of thoracic imaging for screening COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals. The secondary objective was to assess threshold effects of index test positivity on accuracy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 17 February 2021. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19. Studies had to assess chest CT, chest X-ray, or ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19, use a reference standard that included RT-PCR, and report estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which we could compute estimates. We excluded studies that used imaging as part of the reference standard and studies that excluded participants with normal index test results. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using QUADAS-2. We presented sensitivity and specificity per study on paired forest plots, and summarized pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included 98 studies in this review. Of these, 94 were included for evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in the evaluation of people with suspected COVID-19. Eight studies were included for assessing the rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results and positive RT-PCR results on follow-up, and 10 studies were included for evaluating the accuracy of thoracic imaging for imagining asymptomatic individuals. For all 98 included studies, risk of bias was high or unclear in 52 (53%) studies with respect to participant selection, in 64 (65%) studies with respect to reference standard, in 46 (47%) studies with respect to index test, and in 48 (49%) studies with respect to flow and timing. Concerns about the applicability of the evidence to: participants were high or unclear in eight (8%) studies; index test were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies; and reference standard were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies. Imaging in people with suspected COVID-19 We included 94 studies. Eighty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality, and seven studies evaluated two imaging modalities. All studies used RT-PCR alone or in combination with other criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms, positive contacts) as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (69 studies, 28285 participants, 14,342 (51%) cases), sensitivities ranged from 45% to 100%, and specificities from 10% to 99%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 86.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6 to 89.6), and pooled specificity was 78.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 82.3). Definition for index test positivity was a source of heterogeneity for sensitivity, but not specificity. Reference standard was not a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray (17 studies, 8529 participants, 5303 (62%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 44% to 94% and specificity from 24 to 93%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 73.1% (95% CI 64. to -80.5), and pooled specificity was 73.3% (95% CI 61.9 to 82.2). Definition for index test positivity was not found to be a source of heterogeneity. Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. For ultrasound of the lungs (15 studies, 2410 participants, 1158 (48%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 73% to 94% and the specificity ranged from 21% to 98%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 88.9% (95% CI 84.9 to 92.0), and the pooled specificity was 72.2% (95% CI 58.8 to 82.5). Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. Indirect comparisons of modalities evaluated across all 94 studies indicated that chest CT and ultrasound gave higher sensitivity estimates than X-ray (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.001, respectively). Chest CT and ultrasound gave similar sensitivities (P=0.42). All modalities had similar specificities (CT versus X-ray P = 0.36; CT versus ultrasound P = 0.32; X-ray versus ultrasound P = 0.89). Imaging in PCR-negative people who subsequently became positive For rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results, we included 8 studies (7 CT, 1 ultrasound) with a total of 198 participants suspected of having COVID-19, all of whom had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Most studies (7/8) evaluated CT. Of 177 participants with initially negative RT-PCR who had positive RT-PCR results on follow-up testing, 75.8% (95% CI 45.3 to 92.2) had positive CT findings. Imaging in asymptomatic PCR-positive people For imaging asymptomatic individuals, we included 10 studies (7 CT, 1 X-ray, 2 ultrasound) with a total of 3548 asymptomatic participants, of whom 364 (10%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (7 studies, 3134 participants, 315 (10%) cases), the pooled sensitivity was 55.7% (95% CI 35.4 to 74.3) and the pooled specificity was 91.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 95.7). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Chest CT and ultrasound of the lungs are sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for ruling out COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. The uncertainty resulting from high or unclear risk of bias and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Evaluating the Impact of Peer Review on the Completeness of Reporting in Imaging Diagnostic Test Accuracy Research.

BACKGROUND: Despite the nearly ubiquitous reported use of peer review among reputable medical journals, there is limited evidence to support the use of peer review to improve the quality of biomedical research and in particular, imaging diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) research. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether peer review of DTA studies published by imaging journals is associated with changes in completeness of reporting, transparency for risk of bias assessment, and spin. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective cross-sectional study. STUDY SAMPLE: Cross-sectional study of articles published in Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (JMRI), Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (CARJ), and European Radiology (EuRad) before March 31, 2020. ASSESSMENT: Initial submitted and final versions of manuscripts were evaluated for completeness of reporting using the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 and STARD for Abstracts guidelines, transparency of reporting for risk of bias assessment based on Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2), and actual and potential spin using modified published criteria. STATISTICAL TESTS: Two-tailed paired t-tests and paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for comparisons. A P value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: We included 84 diagnostic accuracy studies accepted by three journals between 2014 and 2020 (JMRI = 30, CARJ = 23, and EuRad = 31) of the 692 which were screened. Completeness of reporting according to STARD 2015 increased significantly between initial submissions and final accepted versions (average reported items: 16.67 vs. 17.47, change of 0.80 [95% confidence interval 0.25-1.17]). No significant difference was found for the reporting of STARD for Abstracts (5.28 vs. 5.25, change of -0.03 [-0.15 to 0.11], P = 0.74), QUADAS-2 (6.08 vs. 6.11, change of 0.03 [-1.00 to 0.50], P = 0.92), actual "spin" (2.36 vs. 2.40, change of 0.04 [0.00 to 1.00], P = 0.39) or potential "spin" (2.93 vs. 2.81, change of -0.12 [-1.00 to 0.00], P = 0.23) practices. CONCLUSION: Peer review is associated with a marginal improvement in completeness of reporting in published imaging DTA studies, but not with improvement in transparency for risk of bias assessment or reduction in spin. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 1.

Association of Accuracy, Conclusions, and Reporting Completeness With Acceptance by Radiology Conferences and Journals.

BACKGROUND: Preferential publication of studies with positive findings can lead to overestimation of diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. publication bias). Understanding the contribution of the editorial process to publication bias could inform interventions to optimize the evidence guiding clinical decisions. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate whether accuracy estimates, abstract conclusion positivity, and completeness of abstract reporting are associated with acceptance to radiology conferences and journals. STUDY TYPE: Meta-research. POPULATION: Abstracts submitted to radiology conferences (European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM)) from 2008 to 2018 and manuscripts submitted to radiology journals (Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging [JMRI]) from 2017 to 2018. Primary clinical studies evaluating sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic imaging test in humans with available editorial decisions were included. ASSESSMENT: Primary variables (Youden's index [YI > 0.8 vs. <0.8], abstract conclusion positivity [positive vs. neutral/negative], number of reported items on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] for Abstract guideline) and confounding variables (prospective vs. retrospective/unreported, sample size, study duration, interobserver agreement assessment, subspecialty, modality) were extracted. STATISTICAL TESTS: Multivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratio (OR) as a measure of the association between the primary variables and acceptance by radiology conferences and journals; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values were obtained; the threshold for statistical significance was P < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 1000 conference abstracts (500 ESGAR and 500 ISMRM) and 1000 journal manuscripts (505 Radiology and 495 JMRI) were included. Conference abstract acceptance was not significantly associated with YI (adjusted OR = 0.97 for YI > 0.8; CI = 0.70-1.35), conclusion positivity (OR = 1.21 for positive conclusions; CI = 0.75-1.90) or STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 0.96 per unit increase in reported items; CI = 0.82-1.18). Manuscripts with positive abstract conclusions were less likely to be accepted by radiology journals (OR = 0.45; CI = 0.24-0.86), while YI (OR = 0.85; CI = 0.56-1.29) and STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 1.06; CI = 0.87-1.30) showed no significant association. Positive conclusions were present in 86.7% of submitted conference abstracts and 90.2% of journal manuscripts. DATA CONCLUSION: Diagnostic test accuracy studies with positive findings were not preferentially accepted by the evaluated radiology conferences or journals. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Tweeting Bias in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Research: Does Title or Conclusion Positivity Influence Dissemination?

PURPOSE: To examine if tweeting bias exists within imaging literature by determining if diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies with positive titles or conclusions are tweeted more than non-positive studies. METHODS: DTA studies published between October 2011 to April 2016 were included. Positivity of titles and conclusions were assessed independently and in duplicate, with disagreements resolved by consensus. A negative binomial regression analysis controlling for confounding variables was performed to assess the relationship between title or conclusion positivity and tweets an article received in the 100 days post-publication. RESULTS: 354 DTA studies were included. Twenty-four (7%) titles and 300 (85%) conclusions were positive (or positive with qualifier); 1 (0.3%) title and 23 (7%) conclusions were negative; and 329 (93%) titles and 26 (7%) conclusions were neutral. Studies with positive, negative, and neutral titles received a mean of 0.38, 0.00, and 0.45 tweets per study; while those with positive, negative, and neutral conclusions received a mean of 0.44, 0.61, and 0.38 tweets per study. Regression coefficients were -0.05 (SE 0.46) for positive relative to non-positive titles, and -0.09 (SE 0.31) for positive relative to non-positive conclusions. The positivity of the title (P = 0.91) or conclusion (P = 0.76) was not significantly associated with the number of tweets an article received. CONCLUSIONS: The positivity of the title or conclusion for DTA studies does not influence the amount of tweets it receives suggesting that tweet bias is not present among imaging diagnostic accuracy studies. Study protocol available at https://osf.io/hdk2m/.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to present diagnostic challenges. Our 2020 edition of this review showed thoracic (chest) imaging to be sensitive and moderately specific in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this update, we include new relevant studies, and have removed studies with case-control designs, and those not intended to be diagnostic test accuracy studies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging (computed tomography (CT), X-ray and ultrasound) in people with suspected COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 30 September 2020. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19 and that reported estimates of test accuracy or provided data from which we could compute estimates. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain-list. We presented the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity using paired forest plots, and we summarised pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented the uncertainty of accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 studies with 19,775 participants suspected of having COVID-19, of whom 10,155 (51%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Forty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality each, and four studies evaluated two imaging modalities each. All studies used RT-PCR as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19, with 47 studies using only RT-PCR and four studies using a combination of RT-PCR and other criteria (such as clinical signs, imaging tests, positive contacts, and follow-up phone calls) as the reference standard. Studies were conducted in Europe (33), Asia (13), North America (3) and South America (2); including only adults (26), all ages (21), children only (1), adults over 70 years (1), and unclear (2); in inpatients (2), outpatients (32), and setting unclear (17). Risk of bias was high or unclear in thirty-two (63%) studies with respect to participant selection, 40 (78%) studies with respect to reference standard, 30 (59%) studies with respect to index test, and 24 (47%) studies with respect to participant flow. For chest CT (41 studies, 16,133 participants, 8110 (50%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 25.4% to 97.4%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 87.9% (95% CI 84.6 to 90.6) and the pooled specificity was 80.0% (95% CI 74.9 to 84.3). There was no statistical evidence indicating that reference standard conduct and definition for index test positivity were sources of heterogeneity for CT studies. Nine chest CT studies (2807 participants, 1139 (41%) cases) used the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) scoring system, which has five thresholds to define index test positivity. At a CO-RADS threshold of 5 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 41.5% to 77.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 67.0% (95% CI 56.4 to 76.2); the specificity ranged from 83.5% to 96.2%; and the pooled specificity was 91.3% (95% CI 87.6 to 94.0). At a CO-RADS threshold of 4 (7 studies), the sensitivity ranged from 56.3% to 92.9% and the pooled sensitivity was 83.5% (95% CI 74.4 to 89.7); the specificity ranged from 77.2% to 90.4% and the pooled specificity was 83.6% (95% CI 80.5 to 86.4). For chest X-ray (9 studies, 3694 participants, 2111 (57%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 51.9% to 94.4% and specificity ranged from 40.4% to 88.9%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 80.6% (95% CI 69.1 to 88.6) and the pooled specificity was 71.5% (95% CI 59.8 to 80.8). For ultrasound of the lungs (5 studies, 446 participants, 211 (47%) cases) the sensitivity ranged from 68.2% to 96.8% and specificity ranged from 21.3% to 78.9%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 86.4% (95% CI 72.7 to 93.9) and the pooled specificity was 54.6% (95% CI 35.3 to 72.6). Based on an indirect comparison using all included studies, chest CT had a higher specificity than ultrasound. For indirect comparisons of chest CT and chest X-ray, or chest X-ray and ultrasound, the data did not show differences in specificity or sensitivity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that chest CT is sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Ultrasound is sensitive but not specific for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for excluding COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should pre-define positive imaging findings, include direct comparisons of the various modalities of interest in the same participant population, and implement improved reporting practices.