UNASSIGNED: Anemia is a global public health concern, affecting both developing and industrialized countries at a rate of 39.8%. It is defined by low hemoglobin concentration, and anemia varies in severity based on age: <11 g/dL (6-59 months), <11.5 g/dL (5-11 years), and < 12 g/dL (12-14 years).
UNASSIGNED: This study evaluates the Mentzer index\'s reliability in differentiating iron deficiency anemia from the thalassemia trait.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 434 children (≤16 years) with hemoglobin electrophoresis previously screened for microcytosis (MCV <80 FL) and an iron profile were included. Children with other hematological conditions were excluded.
UNASSIGNED: Out of 434 children, 181 were diagnosed with thalassemia, and 345 had iron deficiency anemia. The Mentzer index showed 74% sensitivity and 63% specificity for the beta-thalassemia trait, with 61% sensitivity and 36% specificity for iron deficiency anemia. The beta-thalassemia trait group had the highest negative predictive value (98%), while iron deficiency anemia had the highest positive predictive value (79%).
UNASSIGNED: Our study, which is consistent with previous literature, suggests that the Mentzer index is not highly reliable in distinguishing iron deficiency anemia from the thalassemia trait among children in Saudi Arabia.

OBJECTIVE: Line blot (LB) is in widespread use for myositis antibody detection. Yet, studies of its positive predictive value (PPV) in patients with suspected idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM), which would be of particular relevance to neuromuscular clinicians, are lacking. We aimed to determine the PPV of myositis antibody LB testing in patients with suspected IIM, and examine whether PPV was significantly impacted by intensity of antibody positivity.
METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent myositis antibody LB testing for suspected IIM between March 2019 and August 2022.
RESULTS: Of 70 patients who underwent testing for suspected IIM and had positive myositis antibody LB results, 43 (61%) were female and the median age was 61 years (range: 10-83 years). Forty-four were classified as true-positives, yielding a PPV of 63%. The PPV of patients with weak-positive myositis antibody results (14/30, 47%) was significantly lower than the PPV of patients with moderate-positive or strong-positive myositis antibody results (30/40, 75%) (p = .02).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that myositis antibody LB testing in patients with suspected IIM had a modest PPV, underscoring the need for antibody interpretation in the context of all available clinical and ancillary test data to avoid misdiagnosis. The significantly lower PPV in patients with weak-positive results emphasizes the particular importance of clinical correlation in such patients. Further study into the diagnostic performance of various LBs for myositis antibody detection is needed to inform their interpretation in clinical practice.

Plasma amyloid beta (Aβ) and tau are emerging as accessible biomarkers for Alzheimer\'s disease (AD). However, many assays exist with variable test performances, highlighting the need for a comparative assessment to identify the most valid assays for future use in AD and to apply to other settings in which the same biomarkers may be useful, namely, cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA). CAA is a progressive cerebrovascular disease characterized by deposition of Aβ40 and Aβ42 in cortical and leptomeningeal vessels. Novel immunotherapies for AD can induce amyloid-related imaging abnormalities resembling CAA-related inflammation. Few studies have evaluated plasma biomarkers in CAA. Identifying a CAA signature could facilitate diagnosis, prognosis, and a safer selection of patients with AD for emerging immunotherapies. This review evaluates studies that compare the diagnostic test performance of plasma biomarker techniques in AD and cerebrovascular and plasma biomarker profiles of CAA; it also discusses novel hypotheses and future avenues for plasma biomarker research in CAA.

Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens (Ag) are commonly used to diagnose COVID-19. The most widely used tests are lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays have also been developed. The number of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection tests has increased rapidly, as has the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is an update to the third in a series of frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by the IDSA. IDSA\'s goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and nonmedical settings. A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. A review of relevant, peer-reviewed published literature was conducted through 1 April 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel made 10 diagnostic recommendations that address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared with nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Ag test sensitivity is dependent on the presence or absence of symptoms and, in symptomatic patients, on timing of testing after symptom onset. In most cases, positive Ag results can be acted upon without confirmation. Results of point-of-care testing are comparable to those of laboratory-based testing, and observed or unobserved self-collection of specimens for testing yields similar results. Modeling suggests that repeat Ag testing increases sensitivity compared with testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the testing methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when timely molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing helps identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were insufficient to make a recommendation about the utility of Ag testing to guide release of patients with COVID-19 from isolation. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

As cervical cancer screening shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, a major issue involves validating more HPV tests. In recent years, some HPV tests are used for clinical performance verification in China. The purpose of this study was to explore whether the BD Onclarity (Becton, Dickinson and Company)HPV assay differs from the Roche cobas (Roche Molecular Systems)HPV assay, as determined using 944 cervical samples, including 588 with sequencing results. In the nucleic acid assay accuracy verification, the assays showed excellent concordance for detection of HPV16 (κ = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-0.97) and HPV18 (κ = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83-0.97), and very good concordance for the 12 other high-risk types (HPV31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68, κ = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.75-0.83). The overall agreement for HPV DNA detection between Onclarity and cobas was very good (κ = 0.7755). No difference for ≥CIN2 sensitivity was observed between Onclarity and cobas (both 96.5%), whereas the ≥CIN2 specificity for detection of Onclarity (16.6%, 95% CI: 13.7-19.9) was higher than that of cobas (11.5%, 95% CI: 9.1-14.5). Onclarity exhibited comparable screening performance and triage efficiency compared to cobas in the detection of cervical disease in Chinese women.

The interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) assay and single comparative cervical skin test (SCITT) are used to estimate bovine tuberculosis (bTB) prevalence globally. Prevalence estimates of bTB, caused by Mycobacterium bovis, are poorly quantified in many Sub-Saharan African (SSA) cattle populations. Furthermore, antemortem diagnostic performance can vary at different stages of bTB pathogenesis and in different cattle populations. In this study, we aim to explore the level of agreement and disagreement between the IFN-γ assay and SCITT test, along with the drivers for disagreement, in a naturally infected African cattle population. In, 2013, a pastoral cattle population was sampled using a stratified clustered cross-sectional study in Cameroon. A total of 100 pastoral cattle herds in the North West Region (NWR) and the Vina Division (VIN) were sampled totalling 1,448 cattle. Individual animal data and herd-level data were collected, and animals were screened using both the IFN-γ assay and SCITT. Serological ELISAs were used to detect exposure to immunosuppressing co-infections. Agreement analyses were used to compare the performance between the two bTB diagnostic tests, and multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression models (MLR) were developed to investigate the two forms of IFN-γ assay and SCITT binary disagreement. Best agreement using the Cohen\'s κ statistic, between the SCITT (>2 mm) and the IFN-γ assay implied a \'fair-moderate\' agreement for the NWR [κ = 0.42 (95%CI: 0.31-0.53)] and \'poor-moderate\' for the VIN [κ = 0.33 (95% CI: 0.18-0.47)]. The main test disagreement was the animals testing positive on the IFN-γ assay and negative by the SCITT. From MLR modeling, adults (adults OR: 7.57; older adults OR = 7.21), females (OR = 0.50), bovine leucosis (OR = 2.30), and paratuberculosis positivity (OR = 6.54) were associated with IFN-γ-positive/SCITT-negative disagreement. Subsets to investigate diagnostic test disagreement for being SCITT-positive and IFN-γ-negative also identified that adults (adults OR = 15.74; older adults OR = 9.18) were associated with IFN-γ-negative/SCITT-positive disagreement. We demonstrate that individual or combined use of the IFN-γ assay and SCITT can lead to a large variation in bTB prevalence estimates. Considering that animal level factors were associated with disagreement between the IFN-γ assay and SCITT in this study, future work should further investigate their impact on diagnostic test performance to develop the approaches to improve SSA prevalence estimates.

Since 1948, Shannon theoretic methods for modeling information have found a wide range of applications in several areas where information plays a key role, which goes well beyond the original scopes for which they have been conceived, namely data compression and error correction over a noisy channel. Among other uses, these methods have been applied in the broad field of medical diagnostics since the 1970s, to quantify diagnostic information, to evaluate diagnostic test performance, but also to be used as technical tools in image processing and registration. This review illustrates the main contributions in assessing the accuracy of diagnostic tests and the agreement between raters, focusing on diagnostic test performance measurements and paired agreement evaluation. This work also presents a recent unified, coherent, and hopefully, final information-theoretical approach to deal with the flows of information involved among the patient, the diagnostic test performed to appraise the state of disease, and the raters who are checking the test results. The approach is assessed by considering two case studies: the first one is related to evaluating extra-prostatic cancers; the second concerns the quality of rapid tests for COVID-19 detection.

The objective of this meta-analysis was to analyze agreement in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) determination between peripheral arterial tonometry (PAT) and polysomnography (PSG) studies.
Mean AHI bias and standard deviation extracted from Bland-Altman plots reported in studies were pooled in a meta-analysis, which was then used to calculate percentage errors of limit agreement in AHI determination by PAT using PSG AHI as the reference. Individual participant data (where reported in studies) were used to compute Cohen\'s kappa to assess agreement between PSG and PAT on sleep apnea severity and for computing the sensitivity and specificity of PAT at different AHI thresholds using PSG AHI as the reference.
From 17 studies and 1,318 participants (all underwent simultaneous PSG and use of the WatchPAT device), a pooled mean AHI bias of 0.30 (standard error [SE], 0.74) and a WatchPAT AHI percentage error of 230% was calculated. The meta-analysis of Cohen\'s kappa for agreement between PSG and WatchPAT studies for classifying patients with no sleep apnea, mild, moderate, or severe sleep apnea severity was 0.45 (SE, 0.06), 0.29 (SE, 0.05), 0.25 (SE, 0.07), and 0.64 (SE, 0.05), respectively. At AHI thresholds of 5, 15 and 30 events/h, WatchPAT studies showed pooled sensitivities and specificities of 94.11% and 43.47%, 92.21% and 72.39%, and 74.11% and 87.10%, respectively. Likelihood ratios were not significant at any AHI threshold.
The results of this meta-analysis suggest clinically significant discordance between WatchPAT and PSG measurements of AHI, significant sleep apnea severity misclassification by PAT studies, and poor diagnostic test performance.
Iftikhar IH, Finch CE, Shah AS, Augunstein CA, Ioachimescu OC. A meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance of peripheral arterial tonometry studies. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18(4):1093-1102.

Introduction. The evolving SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic presents a series of challenges to clinical diagnostic services. Many proprietary PCR platforms deployed outside centralised laboratories have limited capacity to upscale when public health demands increase. We set out to develop and validate an open-platform mobile laboratory for remote area COVID-19 diagnosis, with a subsequent field trial.Gap Statement. In regional Western Australia, molecular diagnostic support is limited to near point-of-care devices. We therefore aimed to demonstrate open-platform capability in a rapidly deployable format within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.Methodology. We compared, selected and validated components of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay in order to establish a portable molecular diagnostics laboratory. The optimal combination of PCR assay equipment, reagents and consumables required for operation to national standards in regional laboratories was identified. This comprised RNA extraction and purification (QuickGene-480, Kurabo, Japan), a duplex RT-PCR assay (Logix Smart COVID-19, Co-Diagnostics, USA), a Myra liquid handling robot (Biomolecular Systems, Australia) and a magnetic induction thermal cycler (MIC, Biomolecular Systems).Results The 95 and 99% limits of detection were 1.01 copies μl-1 (5.05 copies per reaction) and 2.80 copies μl-1 (14.00 copies per reaction) respectively. The Co-Diagnostics assay amplified both SARS-CoV-1 and -2 RNA but showed no other cross reactivity. Qualitative results aligned with the reference laboratory SARS-CoV-2 assay (sensitivity 100% [95 % CI 96.48-100%], specificity 100% [95% CI 96.52-100%]). In field trials, the laboratory was operational within an hour of arrival on-site, can process up to 36 samples simultaneously, produces results in two and a half hours from specimen reception, and performed well during six consecutive runs during a 1 week deployment.Conclusion. Our mobile laboratory enables an adaptive response to increased test demand, and unlike many proprietary point-of-care PCR systems, rapid substitution with an alternative assay if gene targets change or reagent supply chains fail. We envisage operation of this RT-PCR assay as a standby capability to meet varying regional test demands under public health emergency operations guidance.

Chronic constipation is a common condition, and dyssynergic defecation underlies up to 40% of cases. Anorectal manometry is recommended to assess for dyssynergic defecation among chronically constipated patients but remains poorly standardized. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of anorectal manometry and determine optimal testing parameters.
We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy including cohort studies of chronically constipated patients and case-control studies of patients with dyssynergic defecation or healthy controls. Meta-analysis was performed to determine summary sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
A total of 15 studies comprising 2140 patients were included. Including all studies (estimating optimal diagnostic accuracy), the AUC was 0.78 [95% CI 0.72-0.82], summary sensitivity was 79% [61%-90%], and summary specificity was 64% [44%-79%] to diagnose dyssynergic defecation. In cohort studies only (estimating real-world diagnostic accuracy), the AUC was 0.72 [0.66-0.77], summary sensitivity was 86% [64%-95%], and summary specificity was 49% [30%-68%]. Employing three consecutive simulated defecation attempts improved sensitivity to 94%. A fourth simulated defecation maneuver with air insufflation may improve accuracy. Measuring anorectal pressures to identify complex dyssynergic patterns did not improve real-world diagnostic accuracy estimates over anal pressure measurement alone. Choice of manometry system did not impact diagnostic accuracy.
Following the current iteration of the London consensus protocol (three simulated defecation attempts measuring anal relaxation), the role of anorectal manometry in evaluating dyssynergic defecation appears limited. Future iterations of this protocol may improve diagnostic accuracy.