Transvaginal ultrasound with bowel preparation versus transvaginal ultrasound with bowel preparation and water contrast for diagnosing Recto-Sigmoid endometriosis. A systematic review and Meta-Analysis.

Transvaginal ultrasound is effective in diagnosing endometriosis involving the rectosigmoid bowel. Some authors suggest enhanced detection of rectosigmoid involvement with bowel preparation. Conversely, conflicting views argue that bowel preparation may not improve diagnostic precision, yielding similar results to rectal water contrast. No existing meta-analysis compares these approaches. Our study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of transvaginal ultrasound with bowel preparation, with and without rectal water contrast. Studies published between 2000 and 2023 were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Science. From 561 citations, we selected nine studies to include in this meta-analysis. The study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2). The mean prevalence of endometriosis rectosigmoid was 43.6% (range 17,56-76,66%) in the group with bowel preparation and 64,80% (50,0-83,60%) for the group with bowel preparation and rectal water contrast. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 93% and 94% for bowel preparation and 92% and 95% and for bowel preparation with water contrast. We conclude that, there was no significant difference between performing transvaginal ultrasound with intestinal preparation with and without water contrast. In clinical practice, the absence of a significant difference between these methods should be taken into account when making recommendations.

Maderuelo S ，Satorres E ，Arrufat T ，Lourenço M ，Novillo-Del Álamo B ，Guerriero S ，Alcazar JL ... -  《-》

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

Elwenspoek MM ，Thom H ，Sheppard AL ，Keeney E ，O'Donnell R ，Jackson J ，Roadevin C ，Dawson S ，Lane D ，Stubbs J ，Everitt H ，Watson JC ，Hay AD ，Gillett P ，Robins G ，Jones HE ，Mallett S ，Whiting PF ... -  《-》

The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Sample collection is a key driver of accuracy in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Viral load may vary at different anatomical sampling sites and accuracy may be compromised by difficulties obtaining specimens and the expertise of the person taking the sample. It is important to optimise sampling accuracy within cost, safety and accessibility constraints. To compare the sensitivity of different sampling collection sites and methods for the detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection with any molecular or antigen-based test. Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 22 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions. We included studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic people with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing testing. We included studies of any design that compared results from different sample types (anatomical location, operator, collection device) collected from the same participant within a 24-hour period. Within a sample pair, we defined a reference sample and an index sample collected from the same participant within the same clinical encounter (within 24 hours). Where the sample comparison was different anatomical sites, the reference standard was defined as a nasopharyngeal or combined naso/oropharyngeal sample collected into the same sample container and the index sample as the alternative anatomical site. Where the sample comparison was concerned with differences in the sample collection method from the same site, we defined the reference sample as that closest to standard practice for that sample type. Where the sample pair comparison was concerned with differences in personnel collecting the sample, the more skilled or experienced operator was considered the reference sample. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C checklists, tailored to this review. We present estimates of the difference in the sensitivity (reference sample (%) minus index sample sensitivity (%)) in a pair and as an average across studies for each index sampling method using forest plots and tables. We examined heterogeneity between studies according to population (age, symptom status) and index sample (time post-symptom onset, operator expertise, use of transport medium) characteristics. This review includes 106 studies reporting 154 evaluations and 60,523 sample pair comparisons, of which 11,045 had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ninety evaluations were of saliva samples, 37 nasal, seven oropharyngeal, six gargle, six oral and four combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples. Four evaluations were of the effect of operator expertise on the accuracy of three different sample types. The majority of included evaluations (146) used molecular tests, of which 140 used RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction). Eight evaluations were of nasal samples used with Ag-RDTs (rapid antigen tests). The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (35/106, 33%) or the USA (27%) and conducted in dedicated COVID-19 testing clinics or in ambulatory hospital settings (53%). Targeted screening or contact tracing accounted for only 4% of evaluations. Where reported, the majority of evaluations were of adults (91/154, 59%), 28 (18%) were in mixed populations with only seven (4%) in children. The median prevalence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 23% (interquartile (IQR) 13%-40%). Risk of bias and applicability assessment were hampered by poor reporting in 77% and 65% of included studies, respectively. Risk of bias was low across all domains in only 3% of evaluations due to inappropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria, unclear recruitment, lack of blinding, nonrandomised sampling order or differences in testing kit within a sample pair. Sixty-eight percent of evaluation cohorts were judged as being at high or unclear applicability concern either due to inflation of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in study populations by selectively including individuals with confirmed PCR-positive samples or because there was insufficient detail to allow replication of sample collection. When used with RT-PCR • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between gargle and nasopharyngeal samples (on average -1 percentage points, 95% CI -5 to +2, based on 6 evaluations, 2138 sample pairs, of which 389 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between saliva collection from the deep throat and nasopharyngeal samples (on average +10 percentage points, 95% CI -1 to +21, based on 2192 sample pairs, of which 730 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was evidence that saliva collection using spitting, drooling or salivating was on average -12 percentage points less sensitive (95% CI -16 to -8, based on 27,253 sample pairs, of which 4636 had SARS-CoV-2) compared to nasopharyngeal samples. We did not find any evidence of a difference in the sensitivity of saliva collected using spitting, drooling or salivating (sensitivity difference: range from -13 percentage points (spit) to -21 percentage points (salivate)). • Nasal samples (anterior and mid-turbinate collection combined) were, on average, 12 percentage points less sensitive compared to nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -17 to -7), based on 9291 sample pairs, of which 1485 had SARS-CoV-2. We did not find any evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples collected from the mid-turbinates (3942 sample pairs) or from the anterior nares (8272 sample pairs). • There was evidence that oropharyngeal samples were, on average, 17 percentage points less sensitive than nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -29 to -5), based on seven evaluations, 2522 sample pairs, of which 511 had SARS-CoV-2. A much smaller volume of evidence was available for combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples and oral samples. Age, symptom status and use of transport media do not appear to affect the sensitivity of saliva samples and nasal samples. When used with Ag-RDTs • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples (sensitivity, on average, 0 percentage points -0.2 to +0.2, based on 3688 sample pairs, of which 535 had SARS-CoV-2). When used with RT-PCR, there is no evidence for a difference in sensitivity of self-collected gargle or deep-throat saliva samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples collected by healthcare workers when used with RT-PCR. Use of these alternative, self-collected sample types has the potential to reduce cost and discomfort and improve the safety of sampling by reducing risk of transmission from aerosol spread which occurs as a result of coughing and gagging during the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal sample collection procedure. This may, in turn, improve access to and uptake of testing. Other types of saliva, nasal, oral and oropharyngeal samples are, on average, less sensitive compared to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples, and it is unlikely that sensitivities of this magnitude would be acceptable for confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR. When used with Ag-RDTs, there is no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The implications of this for self-testing are unclear as evaluations did not report whether nasal samples were self-collected or collected by healthcare workers. Further research is needed in asymptomatic individuals, children and in Ag-RDTs, and to investigate the effect of operator expertise on accuracy. Quality assessment of the evidence base underpinning these conclusions was restricted by poor reporting. There is a need for further high-quality studies, adhering to reporting standards for test accuracy studies.

Davenport C ，Arevalo-Rodriguez I ，Mateos-Haro M ，Berhane S ，Dinnes J ，Spijker R ，Buitrago-Garcia D ，Ciapponi A ，Takwoingi Y ，Deeks JJ ，Emperador D ，Leeflang MMG ，Van den Bruel A ，Cochrane COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Conservative, physical and surgical interventions for managing faecal incontinence and constipation in adults with central neurological diseases.

People with central neurological disease or injury have a much higher risk of both faecal incontinence (FI) and constipation than the general population. There is often a fine line between the two symptoms, with management intended to ameliorate one risking precipitating the other. Bowel problems are observed to be the cause of much anxiety and may reduce quality of life in these people. Current bowel management is largely empirical, with a limited research base. The review is relevant to individuals with any disease directly and chronically affecting the central nervous system (post-traumatic, degenerative, ischaemic or neoplastic), such as multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, cerebrovascular disease, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001 and subsequently updated in 2003, 2006 and 2014. To assess the effects of conservative, physical and surgical interventions for managing FI and constipation in people with a neurological disease or injury affecting the central nervous system. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (searched 27 March 2023), which includes searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP as well as handsearching of journals and conference proceedings; and all reference lists of relevant articles. We included randomised, quasi-randomised (where allocation is not strictly random), cross-over and cluster-randomised trials evaluating any type of conservative, physical or surgical intervention against placebo, usual care or no intervention for the management of FI and constipation in people with central neurological disease or injury. At least two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in eligible trials using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and independently extracted data from the included trials using a range of prespecified outcome measures. We produced summary of findings tables for our main outcome measures and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We included 25 studies with 1598 participants. The studies were generally at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel to the intervention. Half of the included studies were also at high risk of bias in terms of selective reporting. Outcomes were often reported heterogeneously across studies, making it difficult to pool data. We did not find enough evidence to be able to analyse the effects of interventions on individual central neurological diseases. Additionally, very few studies reported on the primary outcomes of self-reported improvement in FI or constipation, or Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score. Conservative interventions compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo Thirteen studies assessed this comparison. The interventions included assessment-based nursing, holistic nursing, probiotics, psyllium, faecal microbiota transplantation, and a stepwise protocol of increasingly invasive evacuation methods. Conservative interventions may result in a large improvement in faecal incontinence (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.47 to -0.23; 3 studies; n = 410; low-certainty evidence). We interpreted SMD ≥ 0.80 as a large effect. It was not possible to pool all data from studies that assessed improvement in constipation, but the evidence suggested that conservative interventions may improve constipation symptoms (data not pooled; 8 studies; n = 612; low-certainty evidence). Conservative interventions may lead to a reduction in mean time taken on bowel care (data not pooled; 5 studies; n = 526; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain about the effects of conservative interventions on condition-specific quality of life and adverse events. Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score was not reported. Physical therapy compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo Twelve studies assessed this comparison. The interventions included massage therapy, standing, osteopathic manipulative treatment, electrical stimulation, transanal irrigation, and conventional physical therapy with visceral mobilisation. Physical therapies may make little to no difference to self-reported faecal continence assessed using the St Mark's Faecal Incontinence Score, where the minimally important difference is five, or the Cleveland Constipation Score (MD -2.60, 95% CI -4.91 to -0.29; 3 studies; n = 155; low-certainty evidence). Physical therapies may result in a moderate improvement in constipation symptoms (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.14; 9 studies; n = 431; low-certainty evidence). We interpreted SMD ≥ 0.5 as a moderate effect. However, physical therapies may make little to no difference in Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score as the minimally important difference for this tool is 3 (MD -1.94, 95% CI -3.36 to -0.51; 7 studies; n = 358; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effects of physical therapies on the time spent on bowel care, condition-specific quality of life and adverse effects (all very low-certainty evidence). Surgical interventions compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo No studies were found for surgical interventions that met the inclusion criteria for this review. There remains little research on this common and, for patients, very significant issue of bowel management. The available evidence is almost uniformly of low methodological quality. The clinical significance of some of the research findings presented here is difficult to interpret, not least because each intervention has only been addressed in individual trials, against control rather than compared against each other, and the interventions are very different from each other. Understanding whether there is a clinically-meaningful difference from the results of available trials is largely hampered by the lack of uniform outcome measures. This is due to an absence of core outcome sets, and development of these needs to be a research priority to allow studies to be compared directly. Some studies used validated constipation, incontinence or condition-specific measures; however, others used unvalidated analogue scales to report effectiveness. Some studies did not use any patient-reported outcomes and focused on physiological outcome measures, which is of relatively limited significance in terms of clinical implementation. There was evidence in favour of some conservative interventions, but these findings need to be confirmed by larger, well-designed controlled trials, which should include evaluation of the acceptability of the intervention to patients and the effect on their quality of life.

Todd CL ，Johnson EE ，Stewart F ，Wallace SA ，Bryant A ，Woodward S ，Norton C ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study.

Toews I ，Anglemyer A ，Nyirenda JL ，Alsaid D ，Balduzzi S ，Grummich K ，Schwingshackl L ，Bero L ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》