Diabetic foot infection is the leading cause of non-traumatic lower limb amputations worldwide. In addition, diabetes mellitus and sequela of the disease are increasing in prevalence. In 2017, 9.4% of Americans were diagnosed with diabetes mellitus (DM). The growing pervasiveness and financial implications of diabetic foot infection (DFI) indicate an acute need for improved clinical assessment and treatment. Complex pathophysiology and suboptimal specificity of current non-invasive imaging modalities have made diagnosis and treatment response challenging. Current anatomical and molecular clinical imaging strategies have mainly targeted the host\'s immune responses rather than the unique metabolism of the invading microorganism. Advances in imaging have the potential to reduce the impact of these problems and improve the assessment of DFI, particularly in distinguishing infection of soft tissue alone from osteomyelitis (OM). This review presents a summary of the known pathophysiology of DFI, the molecular basis of current and emerging diagnostic imaging techniques, and the mechanistic links of these imaging techniques to the pathophysiology of diabetic foot infections.

A previous Cochrane systematic review concluded there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of 18F-FDG PET in clinical practice in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
To update the evidence and reassess the accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET for detecting people with MCI at baseline who would clinically convert to Alzheimer\'s disease (AD) dementia at follow-up.
A systematic review including comprehensive search of electronic databases from January 2013 to July 2017, to update original searches (1999 to 2013). All key review steps, including quality assessment using QUADAS 2, were performed independently and blindly by two review authors. Meta-analysis could not be conducted due to heterogeneity across studies.
When all included studies were examined across all semi-quantitative and quantitative metrics, exploratory analysis for conversion of MCI to AD dementia (n = 24) showed highly variable accuracy; half the studies failed to meet four or more of the seven sets of QUADAS 2 criteria. Variable accuracy for all metrics was also found across eleven newly included studies published in the last 5 years (range: sensitivity 56-100%, specificity 24-100%). The most consistently high sensitivity and specificity values (approximately ≥80%) were reported for the sc-SPM (single case statistical parametric mapping) metric in 6 out of 8 studies.
Systematic and comprehensive assessment of studies of 18FDG-PET for prediction of conversion from MCI to AD dementia reveals many studies have methodological limitations according to Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy gold standards, and shows accuracy remains highly variable, including in the most recent studies. There is some evidence, however, of higher and more consistent accuracy in studies using computer aided metrics, such as sc-SPM, in specialized clinical settings. Robust, methodologically sound prospective longitudinal cohort studies with long (≥5 years) follow-up, larger consecutive samples, and defined baseline threshold(s) are needed to test these promising results. Further evidence of the clinical validity and utility of 18F-FDG PET in people with MCI is needed.

OBJECTIVE: There are limited published data on the performance of the percentage of haemoglobin A (Hb A) as a screening test for beta thalassaemia major in the newborn period. This paper aims to analyse data derived from a national newborn bloodspot screening programme for sickle cell disease on the performance of haemoglobin A (Hb A) as a screening test for beta thalassaemia major in the newborn period.
METHODS: Newborn bloodspot sickle cell screening data from 2,288,008 babies were analysed. Data reported to the NHS Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia Screening Programme in England for the period 2005 to 2012 were also reviewed to identify any missed cases (4,599,849 babies).
RESULTS: Within the cohort of 2,288,008 births, 170 babies were identified as screen positive for beta thalassaemia major using a cut-point of 1.5% HbA. There were 51 identified through look-back methods and 119 prospectively identified from 4 screening laboratories. Among 119 babies with prospective data, 7 were lost to follow up and 15 were false positive results. Using a cut-off value of 1.5% Hb A as a percentage of the total haemoglobin as a screening test for beta thalassaemia major in the newborn provides an estimated sensitivity of 99% (from the look back arm of the study) with a positive predictive value of 87% (from the prospective arm of the study). Excluding infants born before 32 weeks gestation, the positive predictive value rose to 95%.
CONCLUSIONS: A haemoglobin A value of less than 1.5% is a reliable screening test for beta thalassaemia major in the newborn period.