Search

PURPOSE: We conducted a systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to examine the utility of cystatin C for evaluation of glomerular function in children with cancer. METHODS: Eligible studies evaluated the accuracy of cystatin C for detecting poor renal function in children undergoing chemotherapy. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Authors of four studies shared IPD. We calculated the correlation between log cystatin C and GFR stratified by study and measure of cystatin C. We dichotomized the reference standard at GFR 80 ml/min/1.73m2 and stratified cystatin C at 1 mg/l, to calculate sensitivity and specificity in each study and according to age group (0-4, 5-12, and ≥ 13 years). In sensitivity analyses, we investigated different GFR and cystatin C cut points. We used logistic regression to estimate the association of impaired renal function with log cystatin C and quantified diagnostic accuracy using the area under the ROC curve (AUC). RESULTS: Six studies, which used different test and reference standard thresholds, suggested that cystatin C has the potential to monitor renal function in children undergoing chemotherapy for malignancy. IPD data (504 samples, 209 children) showed that cystatin C has poor sensitivity (63%) and moderate specificity (89%), although use of a GFR cut point of

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether clinicians differ in how they evaluate and interpret diagnostic test information.DESIGN: Systematic review.DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to September 2013; bibliographies of retrieved studies, experts and citation search of key included studies.ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Primary studies that provided information on the accuracy of any diagnostic test (eg, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios) to health professionals and that reported outcomes relating to their understanding of information on or implications of test accuracy.RESULTS: We included 24 studies. 6 assessed ability to define accuracy metrics: health professionals were less likely to identify the correct definition of likelihood ratios than of sensitivity and specificity. -25 studies assessed Bayesian reasoning. Most assessed the influence of a positive test result on the probability of disease: they generally found health professionals' estimation of post-test probability to be poor, with a tendency to overestimation. 3 studies found that approaches based on likelihood ratios resulted in more accurate estimates of post-test probability than approaches based on estimates of sensitivity and specificity alone, while 3 found less accurate estimates. 5 studies found that presenting natural frequencies rather than probabilities improved post-test probability estimation and speed of calculations.CONCLUSIONS: Commonly used measures of test accuracy are poorly understood by health professionals. Reporting test accuracy using natural frequencies and visual aids may facilitate improved understanding and better estimation of the post-test probability of disease.