The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between clinical and imaging findings with a worse clinical outcome in patients with a confirmed diagnosis of H1N1 influenza A virus.
Patients ...with a positive viral test for influenza A H1N1 in 2016 and chest radiography (CR) and/or computed tomography (CT) results had clinical and imaging data reviewed. Hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit or death were defined as worse clinical outcomes. The association between clinical and imaging features and the worse outcome was calculated in a logistical regression model.
Eighty of 160 (50%) patients were men, with a mean age of 43 ± 19 years. The most common symptoms were as follows: flu-like symptoms 141/160 (88%), dyspnea (25/160, 17%), and thoracic pain (7/160, 5%). Abnormalities on CR were detected in 8/110 (7%) patients, and 43/59 (73%) patients had an abnormal CT. The following variables were associated with worse clinical outcomes: the presence of diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension, dyspnea, thoracic pain, abnormal CR or CT regardless of the type of finding, CT with consolidation or ground glass opacity.
The presence of DM, hypertension, dyspnea, thoracic pain, or an abnormal CR or CT on admission were associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with H1N1 influenza A virus infection. Thus, the use of readily accessible clinical and imaging features on admission may have a role in the evaluation of patients with H1N1 infection.
Background
The detection and diagnosis of caries at the earliest opportunity is fundamental to the preservation of tooth tissue and maintenance of oral health. Radiographs have traditionally been ...used to supplement the conventional visual‐tactile clinical examination. Accurate, timely detection and diagnosis of early signs of disease could afford patients the opportunity of less invasive treatment with less destruction of tooth tissue, reduce the need for treatment with aerosol‐generating procedures, and potentially result in a reduced cost of care to the patient and to healthcare services.
Objectives
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of different dental imaging methods to inform the detection and diagnosis of non‐cavitated enamel only coronal dental caries.
Search methods
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist undertook a search of the following databases: MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 31 December 2018); Embase Ovid (1980 to 31 December 2018); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov, to 31 December 2018); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 31 December 2018). We studied reference lists as well as published systematic review articles.
Selection criteria
We included diagnostic accuracy study designs that compared a dental imaging method with a reference standard (histology, excavation, enhanced visual examination), studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of single index tests, and studies that directly compared two or more index tests. Studies reporting at both the patient or tooth surface level were included. In vitro and in vivo studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies that explicitly recruited participants with more advanced lesions that were obviously into dentine or frankly cavitated were excluded. We also excluded studies that artificially created carious lesions and those that used an index test during the excavation of dental caries to ascertain the optimum depth of excavation.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors extracted data independently and in duplicate using a standardised data extraction form and quality assessment based on QUADAS‐2 specific to the clinical context. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy were determined using the bivariate hierarchical method to produce summary points of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence regions. Comparative accuracy of different radiograph methods was conducted based on indirect and direct comparisons between methods. Potential sources of heterogeneity were pre‐specified and explored visually and more formally through meta‐regression.
Main results
We included 104 datasets from 77 studies reporting a total of 15,518 tooth sites or surfaces. The most frequently reported imaging methods were analogue radiographs (55 datasets from 51 studies) and digital radiographs (42 datasets from 40 studies) followed by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) (7 datasets from 7 studies). Only 17 studies were of an in vivo study design, carried out in a clinical setting. No studies were considered to be at low risk of bias across all four domains but 16 studies were judged to have low concern for applicability across all domains. The patient selection domain had the largest number of studies judged to be at high risk of bias (43 studies); the index test, reference standard, and flow and timing domains were judged to be at high risk of bias in 30, 12, and 7 studies respectively.
Studies were synthesised using a hierarchical bivariate method for meta‐analysis. There was substantial variability in the results of the individual studies, with sensitivities that ranged from 0 to 0.96 and specificities from 0 to 1.00. For all imaging methods the estimated summary sensitivity and specificity point was 0.47 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.53) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.92), respectively. In a cohort of 1000 tooth surfaces with a prevalence of enamel caries of 63%, this would result in 337 tooth surfaces being classified as disease free when enamel caries was truly present (false negatives), and 43 tooth surfaces being classified as diseased in the absence of enamel caries (false positives). Meta‐regression indicated that measures of accuracy differed according to the imaging method (Chi2(4) = 32.44, P < 0.001), with the highest sensitivity observed for CBCT, and the highest specificity observed for analogue radiographs. None of the specified potential sources of heterogeneity were able to explain the variability in results. No studies included restored teeth in their sample or reported the inclusion of sealants.
We rated the certainty of the evidence as low for sensitivity and specificity and downgraded two levels in total for risk of bias due to limitations in the design and conduct of the included studies, indirectness arising from the in vitro studies, and the observed inconsistency of the results.
Authors' conclusions
The design and conduct of studies to determine the diagnostic accuracy of methods to detect and diagnose caries in situ are particularly challenging. Low‐certainty evidence suggests that imaging for the detection or diagnosis of early caries may have poor sensitivity but acceptable specificity, resulting in a relatively high number of false‐negative results with the potential for early disease to progress. If left untreated, the opportunity to provide professional or self‐care practices to arrest or reverse early caries lesions will be missed. The specificity of lesion detection is however relatively high, and one could argue that initiation of non‐invasive management (such as the use of topical fluoride), is probably of low risk.
CBCT showed superior sensitivity to analogue or digital radiographs but has very limited applicability to the general dental practitioner. However, given the high‐radiation dose, and potential for caries‐like artefacts from existing restorations, its use cannot be justified in routine caries detection. Nonetheless, if early incidental carious lesions are detected in CBCT scans taken for other purposes, these should be reported. CBCT has the potential to be used as a reference standard in diagnostic studies of this type.
Despite the robust methodology applied in this comprehensive review, the results should be interpreted with some caution due to shortcomings in the design and execution of many of the included studies. Future research should evaluate the comparative accuracy of different methods, be undertaken in a clinical setting, and focus on minimising bias arising from the use of imperfect reference standards in clinical studies.
Introduction
Reject analysis in digital radiography (DR) helps guide the education and training of staff, influences department workflow, reduces patient dose and improves department efficiency. The ...purpose of this study was to investigate rejected radiographs at a major metropolitan emergency imaging department to help form a benchmark of reject rates for DR and to assess what radiographs are being rejected and why.
Methods
A retrospective longitudinal study was undertaken as an in‐depth clinical audit. The data were collected using automated reject analysis software from two digital x‐ray systems from June 2015 to April 2017. The overall reject rate, reasons for rejection as well as the reject rates for individual radiographers, examination types and projections were analysed.
Results
A total of 90,298 radiographic images were acquired and included in the analysis. The average reject rate was 9%, and the most frequent reasons for image rejection were positioning error (49%) and anatomy cut‐off (21%). The reject rate varied between radiographers as well as for individual examination types and projections.
Conclusions
The variation in radiographer reject rates and the high reject rate for some projections indicate that reject analysis is still necessary as a quality assurance tool for DR. A feedback system between radiologists and radiographers may reduce the high percentage of positioning errors by standardising the technical factors used to assess image quality. Future reject analysis should be conducted regularly incorporating an exposure indicator analysis as well as retrospective assessment of individual rejected images.
Reject analysis in radiography is a valuable quality assurance tool that was used frequently in plain film and computed radiography to monitor patient dose, image quality and department efficiency. This in‐depth clinical audit assessed 90,298 images acquired in a digital emergency imaging department from June 2015 to April 2017 with the aim of identifying a benchmark reject rate for digital radiography and to investigate what images were being rejected more frequently and why. The average reject rate was 9%; however, this varied significantly between individual projections as well as individual radiographers, highlighting the need to continue to incorporate reject analysis into a standard quality assurance program for digital radiography.
Petersson A, Axelsson S, Davidson T, Frisk F, Hakeberg M, Kvist T, Norlund A, Mejàre I, Portenier I, Sandberg H, Tranæus S, Bergenholtz G. Radiological diagnosis of periapical bone tissue lesions in ...endodontics: a systematic review. International Endodontic Journal, 45, 783–801, 2012.
This systematic review evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of radiographic methods employed to indicate presence/absence and changes over time of periapical bone lesions. Also investigated were the leads radiographic images may give about the nature of the process and the condition of the pulp in nonendodontically treated teeth. Electronic literature search included the databases PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL from January 1950 to June 2011. All languages were accepted provided there was an in English. The MeSH terms were ‘Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)’, ‘Radiography, panoramic’, ‘Periapical diseases’, ‘Dental pulp diseases’, ‘Sensitivity and specificity’, ‘receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve’, ‘Cadaver’, ‘Endodontics’ and ‘Radiography dental’. Two reviewers independently assessed s and full text articles. An article was read in full text if at least one of the two reviewers considered an to be potentially relevant. Altogether, 181 articles were read in full text. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of evidence of each radiographic method based on studies of high or moderate quality. Twenty‐six studies fulfilled criteria set for inclusion. None was of high quality; 11 were of moderate quality. There is insufficient evidence that the digital intraoral radiographic technique is diagnostically as accurate as the conventional film technique. The same applies to CBCT. No conclusions can be drawn regarding the accuracy of radiological examination in identifying various forms of periapical bone tissue changes or about the pulpal condition.
PDF
