Awareness and prompt recognition of sepsis are essential for nurses working in the emergency department (ED), enabling them to make an initial assessment of patients and then to sort them according to their condition s severity. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate prognostic accuracy in detecting sepsis in the emergency department by comparing the previous sepsis-2 screening tool, the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) and the current sepsis-3 screening tool, the Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA).
This systematic review used the guideline by Bettany-Saltikov and McSherry and was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO. A systematic search was conducted using the CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. Study selection and risk of bias was performed independently by pair of authors.
Five articles were included. Overall, SIRS showed higher sensitivity than qSOFA, while qSOFA showed higher specificity than SIRS. The positive predictive value for qSOFA was superior, while there was a minor deviation in negative predictive value between qSOFA and SIRS.
The overall recommendation based on the included studies indicates that qSOFA is the better-suited screening tool for prognostic accuracy in detecting sepsis in the emergency department.

An amyloid-β (Aβ) positron emission tomography (Aβ-PET) scan of the human brain could lead to an early diagnosis of Alzheimer\'s disease (AD) and estimate disease progression. However, Aβ-PET imaging is expensive, invasive, and rarely applicable to cognitively normal subjects at risk for dementia. The identification of blood biomarkers predictive of Aβ brain deposition could help the identification of subjects at risk for dementia and could be helpful for the prognosis of AD progression.
This study aimed to analyze the prognostic accuracy of blood biomarkers in predicting Aβ-PET status along with progression toward AD.
In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched bibliographic databases from 2010 to 2020. The quality of the included studies was assessed by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool.
A total of 8 studies were retrieved. The prognostic accuracy of Aβ-PET status was calculated by obtaining ROCs for the following biomarkers: free, total, and bound Aβ42 and Aβ40; Aβ42/40 ratio; neurofilaments (NFL); total tau (T-tau); and phosphorylated-tau181 (P-tau181). Higher and lower plasma baseline levels of P-tau181 and the Aβ42/40 ratio, respectively, showed consistently good prognostication of Aβ-PET brain accumulation. Only P-tau181 was shown to predict AD progression.
In conclusion, the Aβ42/40 ratio and plasma P-tau181 were shown to predict Aβ-PET status. Plasma P-tau181 could also be a preclinical biomarker for AD progression.

Crohn\'s disease is a lifelong condition that can affect any segment of the gastrointestinal tract. Some people with Crohn\'s disease may be at higher risk of following a severe course of disease than others and being able to identify the level of risk a patient has could lead to personalised management.
To assess the prognostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of two tools for the stratification of people with a diagnosis of Crohn\'s disease by risk of following a severe course of disease.
The data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to inform the systematic reviews on prognostic accuracy, clinical impact of the prognostic tools, and economic evaluations. Additional data sources to inform the review of economic evaluations were NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment Database.
Systematic reviews of electronic databases were carried out from inception to June 2019 for studies assessing the prognostic accuracy and clinical impact of the IBDX® (Crohn\'s disease Prognosis Test; Glycominds Ltd, Lod, Israel) biomarker stratification tool and the PredictSURE-IBD™ (PredictImmune Ltd, Cambridge, UK) tool. Systematic reviews of studies reporting on the cost-effectiveness of treatments for Crohn\'s disease were run from inception to July 2019. Two reviewers independently agreed on studies for inclusion, assessed the quality of included studies and validated the data extracted from studies. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies precluded the synthesis of data for prognostic accuracy. A de novo economic model was developed to compare the costs and consequences of two treatment approaches - the \'top-down\' and \'step-up\' strategies, with step-up considered standard care - in people at high risk of following a severe course of Crohn\'s disease. The model comprised a decision tree and a Markov cohort model.
Sixteen publications, including eight original studies (n = 1478), were deemed relevant to the review of prognostic accuracy. Documents supplied by the companies marketing the prognostic tools were also reviewed. No study meeting the eligibility criteria reported on the sensitivity or specificity of the IBDX biomarker stratification tool, whereas one study provided estimates of sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value for the PredictSURE-IBD tool. All identified studies were observational and were considered to provide weak evidence on the effectiveness of the tools. Owing to the paucity of data on the two tools, in the base-case analysis the accuracy of PredictSURE-IBD was assumed to be 100%. Accuracy of IBDX was assumed to be 100% in a scenario analysis, with the cost of the tests being the only difference between the analyses. The incremental analysis of cost-effectiveness demonstrated that top-down (via the use of PredictSURE-IBD in the model) is more expensive and generates fewer quality-adjusted life-years than step-up (via the standard care arm of the model).
Despite extensive systematic searches of the literature, no robust evidence was identified of the prognostic accuracy of the biomarker stratification tools IBDX and PredictSURE-IBD.
Although the model indicates that standard care dominates the tests, the lack of evidence of prognostic accuracy of the two tests and the uncertainty around the benefits of the top-down and step-up treatment approaches mean that the results should be interpreted as indicative rather than definitive.
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019138737.
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Crohn’s disease is a condition in which parts of the digestive system become inflamed (swollen). People of any age can develop Crohn’s disease. It is a lifelong condition for which there is no cure. In the UK, Crohn’s disease affects about 1 in every 650 people. Any part of the digestive system can be affected, and the severity of the disease can vary from person to person. Symptoms come and go, and there can be times when there are no symptoms at all. Common symptoms of Crohn’s disease are diarrhoea, stomach-ache and blood in faeces. Treatment is given to reduce or control symptoms and to try to stop inflammation from coming back. Some people with Crohn’s disease are more likely than others to have more relapses and to develop complications of Crohn’s disease that might require surgery. This project looked at how well two tools worked at identifying people with Crohn’s disease who might develop complications or need surgery. Identifying those who have a higher chance of experiencing complications of Crohn’s disease could help them and their doctor to choose their treatment, with the goal of reducing the number of relapses and the risk of surgery in the longer term. In addition, the review assessed whether or not the tools offered value for money. We found limited evidence of how well the tools worked in identifying people who were more likely to develop complications of Crohn’s disease. The lack of evidence on the tools meant that the cost-effectiveness analysis could only assess the value for money of the treatment that is given in clinical practice at this time or of more intensive treatments for people who are more likely to develop complications. The analysis found that current standard care offers more value for money than intensive treatments for people with a higher chance of developing complications of Crohn’s disease.

Fibrosis is the strongest predictor for long-term clinical outcomes among patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). There is growing interest in employing non-invasive methods for risk stratification based on prognosis. FIB-4, NFS and APRI are models commonly used for detecting fibrosis among NAFLD patients. We aimed to synthesize existing literature on the ability of these models in prognosticating NAFLD-related events.
A sensitive search was conducted in two medical databases to retrieve studies evaluating the prognostic accuracy of FIB-4, NFS and APRI among NAFLD patients. Target events were change in fibrosis, liver-related event and mortality. Two reviewers independently performed reference screening, data extraction and quality assessment (QUAPAS tool).
A total of 13 studies (FIB-4:12, NFS: 11, APRI: 10), published between 2013 and 2019, were retrieved. All studies were conducted in a secondary or tertiary care setting, with follow-up ranging from 1 to 20 years. All three markers showed consistently good prognostication of liver-related events (AUC from 0.69 to 0.92). For mortality, FIB-4 (AUC of 0.67-0.82) and NFS (AUC of 0.70-0.83) outperformed APRI (AUC of 0.52-0.73) in all studies. All markers had inconsistent performance for predicting change in fibrosis stage.
FIB-4, NFS, and APRI have demonstrated ability to risk stratify patients for liver-related morbidity and mortality, with comparable performance to a liver biopsy, although more head-to-head studies are needed to validate this. More refined models to prognosticate NAFLD-events may further enhance performance and clinical utility of non-invasive markers.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review focusses on the prognostic accuracy of neonatal body surface screening during outbreaks caused by Gram-negative bacteria for prediction of sepsis. In a previous systematic review we reported that only limited evidence of very low quality exists regarding the predictive value of this screening under routine conditions. We aimed to investigate whether this is different in outbreak settings.
RESULTS: We identified five studies performed during outbreaks in three countries, comprising a total of 316 infants. All studies were at high risk of bias. In outbreak settings, pooled sensitivity of body surface screening to predict sepsis was 98% (95 CI 60 to 100%), while pooled specificity was 26% (95% CI 0.5 to 96%). Evidence quality was low for all outcomes. Extending a previously published systematic review, we show here that in contrast to routine settings sensitivity of body surface screening for sepsis prediction is very high, while specificity is still insufficient. Surface screening appears to be a useful component of bundles of interventions used during outbreaks, but the evidence base is still limited. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42016036664.

OBJECTIVE: Doppler ultrasonographic assessment of the cerebroplacental ratio (CPR) and middle cerebral artery (MCA) is widely used as an adjunct to umbilical artery (UA) Doppler to identify fetuses at risk of adverse perinatal outcome. However, reported estimates of its accuracy vary considerably. The aim of this study was to review systematically the prognostic accuracies of CPR and MCA Doppler in predicting adverse perinatal outcome, and to compare these with UA Doppler, in order to identify whether CPR and MCA Doppler evaluation are of added value to UA Doppler.
METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched, from inception to June 2016, for studies on the prognostic accuracy of UA Doppler compared with CPR and/or MCA Doppler in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome in women with a singleton pregnancy of any risk profile. Risk of bias and concerns about applicability were assessed using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) tool. Meta-analysis was performed for multiple adverse perinatal outcomes. Using hierarchal summary receiver-operating characteristics meta-regression models, the prognostic accuracy of CPR vs MCA Doppler was compared indirectly, and CPR and MCA Doppler vs UA Doppler compared directly.
RESULTS: The search identified 4693 articles, of which 128 studies (involving 47 748 women) were included. Risk of bias or suboptimal reporting was detected in 120/128 studies (94%) and substantial heterogeneity was found, which limited subgroup analyses for fetal growth and gestational age. A large variation was observed in reported sensitivities and specificities, and in thresholds used. CPR outperformed UA Doppler in the prediction of composite adverse outcome (as defined in the included studies) (P < 0.001) and emergency delivery for fetal distress (P = 0.003), but was comparable to UA Doppler for the other outcomes. MCA Doppler performed significantly worse than did UA Doppler in the prediction of low Apgar score (P = 0.017) and emergency delivery for fetal distress (P = 0.034). CPR outperformed MCA Doppler in the prediction of composite adverse outcome (P < 0.001) and emergency delivery for fetal distress (P = 0.013).
CONCLUSIONS: Calculating the CPR with MCA Doppler can add value to UA Doppler assessment in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome in women with a singleton pregnancy. However, it is unclear to which subgroup of pregnant women this applies. The effectiveness of the CPR in guiding clinical management needs to be evaluated in clinical trials. © 2017 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Hospitals conduct extensive screening procedures to assess colonisation of the body surface of neonates by gram-negative bacteria to avoid complications like late-onset sepsis. However, the benefits of these procedures are controversially discussed. Until now, no systematic review has investigated the value of routine screening for colonisation by gram-negative bacteria in neonates for late-onset sepsis prediction.
We will conduct a systematic review, considering studies of any design that include infants up to an age of 12 months. We will search MEDLINE and EMBASE (inception to 2016), reference lists and grey literature. Screening of titles, abstracts and full texts will be conducted by two independent reviewers. We will extract data on study characteristics and study results. Risk of bias will be assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tools. Subgroup analyses are planned according to characteristics of studies, participants, index tests and outcome. For quantitative data synthesis on prognostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of screening to detect late-onset sepsis will be calculated. If sufficient data are available, we will calculate summary estimates using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics and bivariate models. Applying a risk factor approach, pooled summary estimates will be calculated as relative risk or OR, using fixed-effects and random-effects models. I-squared will be used to assess heterogeneity. All calculations will be performed in Stata V14.1 (College Station, Texas, USA). The results will be used to calculate positive and negative predictive value and number needed to be screened to prevent one case of sepsis. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) will be used to assess certainty in the evidence. The protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guideline.
This study will not require ethical approval since it is not carried out in humans. The systematic review will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal.
CRD42016036664.

Discriminating subjects at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis who will develop psychosis from those who will not is a prerequisite for preventive treatments. However, it is not yet possible to make any personalized prediction of psychosis onset relying only on the initial clinical baseline assessment. Here, we first present a systematic review of prognostic accuracy parameters of predictive modeling studies using clinical, biological, neurocognitive, environmental, and combinations of predictors. In a second step, we performed statistical simulations to test different probabilistic sequential 3-stage testing strategies aimed at improving prognostic accuracy on top of the clinical baseline assessment. The systematic review revealed that the best environmental predictive model yielded a modest positive predictive value (PPV) (63%). Conversely, the best predictive models in other domains (clinical, biological, neurocognitive, and combined models) yielded PPVs of above 82%. Using only data from validated models, 3-stage simulations showed that the highest PPV was achieved by sequentially using a combined (clinical + electroencephalography), then structural magnetic resonance imaging and then a blood markers model. Specifically, PPV was estimated to be 98% (number needed to treat, NNT = 2) for an individual with 3 positive sequential tests, 71%-82% (NNT = 3) with 2 positive tests, 12%-21% (NNT = 11-18) with 1 positive test, and 1% (NNT = 219) for an individual with no positive tests. This work suggests that sequentially testing CHR subjects with predictive models across multiple domains may substantially improve psychosis prediction following the initial CHR assessment. Multistage sequential testing may allow individual risk stratification of CHR individuals and optimize the prediction of psychosis.