1
|
Hayden MK, El Mikati IK, Hanson KE, Englund JA, Humphries RM, Lee F, Loeb M, Morgan DJ, Patel R, Al Ta'ani O, Nazzal J, Iqneibi S, Amarin JZ, Sultan S, Falck-Ytter Y, Morgan RL, Murad MH, Bhimraj A, Mustafa RA. Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Serologic Testing. Clin Infect Dis 2024:ciae121. [PMID: 38489670 DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciae121] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2024] [Accepted: 03/01/2024] [Indexed: 03/17/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 has evolved during the pandemic as seroprevalence in global populations has increased. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct updated best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is an update to the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA. OBJECTIVE To develop evidence-based recommendations and identify unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, decisions related to vaccination and administration of monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma in immunocompromised patients, and identification of a serologic correlate of immunity. METHODS A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature reviewed, identified, and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS The panel recommends against serologic testing to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first two weeks after symptom onset (strong recommendations, low certainty of evidence). Serologic testing should not be used to provide evidence of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients with a high clinical suspicion and repeatedly negative nucleic acid amplification test results (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). Serologic testing may assist with the diagnosis of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). To seek evidence for prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, the panel suggests testing for IgG, IgG/IgM, or total antibodies to nucleocapsid protein three to five weeks after symptom onset (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). In individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, we suggest against routine serologic testing given no demonstrated benefit to improving patient outcomes (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence.) The panel acknowledges further that a negative spike antibody test may be a useful metric to identify immunocompromised patients who are candidates for immune therapy. CONCLUSIONS The high seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 worldwide limits the utility of detecting anti-SARS CoV-2 antibody. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for diagnosis was graded as very low to low. Future studies should use serologic assays calibrated to a common reference standard.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary K Hayden
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Pathology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Ibrahim K El Mikati
- Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
- Department of Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Kimberly E Hanson
- Divisions of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Janet A Englund
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Romney M Humphries
- Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Francesca Lee
- Departments of Pathology and Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Mark Loeb
- Division of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Daniel J Morgan
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Robin Patel
- Division of Clinical Microbiology, Division of Public Health, Infectious Diseases, and Occupational Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Omar Al Ta'ani
- Department of Internal Medicine, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Jamil Nazzal
- Office of Scientific Affairs and Research, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan
| | - Shahad Iqneibi
- Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine - Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Justin Z Amarin
- Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Shahnaz Sultan
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis VA Healthcare System, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Yngve Falck-Ytter
- Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Rebecca L Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - M Hassan Murad
- Division of Public Health, Infectious Diseases and Occupational Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Adarsh Bhimraj
- Houston Methodist, Director, Infectious Diseases Fellowship and Education, Division of Infectious Diseases, Houston Methodist Hospital, Center of Excellence for Infectious Diseases Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Reem A Mustafa
- Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ammar S, Borghoff K, El Mikati IK, Mustafa RA, Noureddine L. Using ICD9/10 codes for identifying ADPKD patients, a validation study. J Nephrol 2024; 37:523-525. [PMID: 37907678 DOI: 10.1007/s40620-023-01780-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2023] [Accepted: 09/03/2023] [Indexed: 11/02/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Shahed Ammar
- Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
- University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Campus Box C44-K, 200 Hawkins Dr., Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA.
| | - Kathleen Borghoff
- Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
- Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
| | - Ibrahim K El Mikati
- Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | - Reem A Mustafa
- Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Lama Noureddine
- Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Mustafa RA, El Mikati IK, Murad MH, Hultcrantz M, Steingart KR, Yang B, Leeflang MMG, Akl EA, Dahm P, Schünemann HJ. GRADE guidance 37: rating imprecision in a body of evidence on test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 165:111189. [PMID: 38613246 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.10.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2023] [Revised: 07/07/2023] [Accepted: 10/13/2023] [Indexed: 04/14/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To provide guidance on rating imprecision in a body of evidence assessing the accuracy of a single test. This guide will clarify when Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) users should consider rating down the certainty of evidence by one or more levels for imprecision in test accuracy. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING A project group within the GRADE working group conducted iterative discussions and presentations at GRADE working group meetings to produce this guidance. RESULTS Before rating the certainty of evidence, GRADE users should define the target of their certainty rating. GRADE recommends setting judgment thresholds defining what they consider a very accurate, accurate, inaccurate, and very inaccurate test. These thresholds should be set after considering consequences of testing and effects on people-important outcomes. GRADE's primary criterion for judging imprecision in test accuracy evidence is considering confidence intervals (i.e., CI approach) of absolute test accuracy results (true and false, positive, and negative results in a cohort of people). Based on the CI approach, when a CI appreciably crosses the predefined judgment threshold(s), one should consider rating down certainty of evidence by one or more levels, depending on the number of thresholds crossed. When the CI does not cross judgment threshold(s), GRADE suggests considering the sample size for an adequately powered test accuracy review (optimal or review information size [optimal information size (OIS)/review information size (RIS)]) in rating imprecision. If the combined sample size of the included studies in the review is smaller than the required OIS/RIS, one should consider rating down by one or more levels for imprecision. CONCLUSION This paper extends previous GRADE guidance for rating imprecision in single test accuracy systematic reviews and guidelines, with a focus on the circumstances in which one should consider rating down one or more levels for imprecision.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reem A Mustafa
- Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Centre, 3901 Rainbow Blvd, MS3002, Kansas City, KS 61160, USA; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Ibrahim K El Mikati
- Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | - M Hassan Murad
- Division of Public Health, Infectious Diseases and Occupational Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st, ST, SW, Rochester, MN 55902, USA
| | - Monica Hultcrantz
- Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodav. 18 A, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Karen R Steingart
- Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK
| | - Bada Yang
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105, AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mariska M G Leeflang
- Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, P.O.Box 227001100 DE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Elie A Akl
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, P.O. Box 11-0236, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Philipp Dahm
- Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Urology Section 112D, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, L8S 4L8 Ontario, Canada; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090 Milano, Italy; Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Breisgau, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hayden MK, Hanson KE, Englund JA, Lee MJ, Loeb M, Lee F, Morgan DJ, Patel R, El Mikati IK, Iqneibi S, Alabed F, Amarin JZ, Mansour R, Patel P, Falck-Ytter Y, Morgan RL, Murad MH, Sultan S, Bhimraj A, Mustafa RA. The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Molecular Diagnostic Testing. Clin Infect Dis 2023:ciad646. [PMID: 38112284 DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciad646] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2023] [Indexed: 12/21/2023] Open
Abstract
Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and for identifying asymptomatic carriage of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The number of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests continues to increase as does the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss nuances of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings, and highlight important unmet research needs related to COVID-19 diagnostic testing. IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel agreed on 12 diagnostic recommendations. Access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention, and the public health response to COVID-19 infection. Information on the clinical performance of available tests continues to grow, but the quality of evidence of the current literature to support this updated molecular diagnostic guideline remains moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is suggested for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions. Evidence in support of rapid testing and testing of upper respiratory specimens other than nasopharyngeal swabs, which offer logistical advantages, is sufficient to warrant conditional recommendations in favor of these approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary K Hayden
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
- Department of Pathology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Kimberly E Hanson
- Divisions of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Janet A Englund
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Mark J Lee
- Department of Pathology and Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Mark Loeb
- Division of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Francesca Lee
- Departments of Pathology and Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Daniel J Morgan
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Robin Patel
- Division of Clinical Microbiology and Division of Public Health, Infectious Diseases, and Occupational Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Ibrahim K El Mikati
- Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
| | - Shahad Iqneibi
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
| | - Farouk Alabed
- School of Medicine, The University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
| | - Justin Z Amarin
- Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Razan Mansour
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
| | - Payal Patel
- Department of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine and Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Yngve Falck-Ytter
- Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Rebecca L Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - M Hassan Murad
- Division of Public Health, Infectious Diseases and Occupational Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Shahnaz Sultan
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis VA Healthcare System, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Adarsh Bhimraj
- Houston Methodist Hospital, Center of Excellence for Infectious Diseases, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Reem A Mustafa
- Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Murad MH, Wang Z, Chu H, Lin L, El Mikati IK, Khabsa J, Akl EA, Nieuwlaat R, Schuenemann HJ, Riaz IB. Proposed triggers for retiring a living systematic review. BMJ Evid Based Med 2023; 28:348-352. [PMID: 36889900 PMCID: PMC10579491 DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/23/2023] [Indexed: 03/10/2023]
Abstract
Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs are critical for decision-making in topics where the evidence continues to evolve. It is not feasible to continue to update LSRs indefinitely; however, guidance on when to retire LSRs from the living mode is not clear. We propose triggers for making such a decision. The first trigger is to retire LSRs when the evidence becomes conclusive for the outcomes that are required for decision-making. Conclusiveness of evidence is best determined based on the GRADE certainty of evidence construct, which is more comprehensive than solely relying on statistical considerations. The second trigger to retire LSRs is when the question becomes less pertinent for decision-making as determined by relevant stakeholders, including people affected by the problem, healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers. LSRs can also be retired from a living mode when new studies are not anticipated to be published on the topic and when resources become unavailable to continue updating. We describe examples of retired LSRs and apply the proposed approach using one LSR about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in high-risk renal cell carcinoma that we retired from a living mode and published its last update.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohammad Hassan Murad
- Public Health, Infectious Diseases and Occupational Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
- Kern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Zhen Wang
- Kern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Haitao Chu
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Lifeng Lin
- Department of Statistics, University of Arizona Medical Center-South Campus, Tucson, Arizona, USA
| | | | - Joanne Khabsa
- Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Elie A Akl
- Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
- Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Robby Nieuwlaat
- Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Holger J Schuenemann
- Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- McMaster University, GRADE Center, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milano, Italy
| | - Irbaz Bin Riaz
- Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
- Mass General Brigham Inc, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
El Mikati IK, Hoteit R, Harb T, El Zein O, Piggott T, Melki J, Mustafa RA, Akl EA. Defining Misinformation and Related Terms in Health-Related Literature: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res 2023; 25:e45731. [PMID: 37556184 PMCID: PMC10414029 DOI: 10.2196/45731] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2023] [Revised: 06/01/2023] [Accepted: 06/07/2023] [Indexed: 08/10/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Misinformation poses a serious challenge to clinical and policy decision-making in the health field. The COVID-19 pandemic amplified interest in misinformation and related terms and witnessed a proliferation of definitions. OBJECTIVE We aim to assess the definitions of misinformation and related terms used in health-related literature. METHODS We conducted a scoping review of systematic reviews by searching Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Epistemonikos databases for articles published within the last 5 years up till March 2023. Eligible studies were systematic reviews that stated misinformation or related terms as part of their objectives, conducted a systematic search of at least one database, and reported at least 1 definition for misinformation or related terms. We extracted definitions for the terms misinformation, disinformation, fake news, infodemic, and malinformation. Within each definition, we identified concepts and mapped them across misinformation-related terms. RESULTS We included 41 eligible systematic reviews, out of which 32 (78%) reviews addressed the topic of public health emergencies (including the COVID-19 pandemic) and contained 75 definitions for misinformation and related terms. The definitions consisted of 20 for misinformation, 19 for disinformation, 10 for fake news, 24 for infodemic, and 2 for malinformation. "False/inaccurate/incorrect" was mentioned in 15 of 20 definitions of misinformation, 13 of 19 definitions of disinformation, 5 of 10 definitions of fake news, 6 of 24 definitions of infodemic, and 0 of 2 definitions of malinformation. Infodemic had 19 of 24 definitions addressing "information overload" and malinformation had 2 of 2 definitions with "accurate" and 1 definition "used in the wrong context." Out of all the definitions, 56 (75%) were referenced from other sources. CONCLUSIONS While the definitions of misinformation and related terms in the health field had inconstancies and variability, they were largely consistent. Inconstancies related to the intentionality in misinformation definitions (7 definitions mention "unintentional," while 5 definitions have "intentional"). They also related to the content of infodemic (9 definitions mention "valid and invalid info," while 6 definitions have "false/inaccurate/incorrect"). The inclusion of concepts such as "intentional" may be difficult to operationalize as it is difficult to ascertain one's intentions. This scoping review has the strength of using a systematic method for retrieving articles but does not cover all definitions in the extant literature outside the field of health. This scoping review of the health literature identified several definitions for misinformation and related terms, which showed variability and included concepts that are difficult to operationalize. Health practitioners need to exert caution before labeling a piece of information as misinformation or any other related term and only do so after ascertaining accurateness and sometimes intentionality. Additional efforts are needed to allow future consensus around clear and operational definitions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ibrahim K El Mikati
- Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, United States
| | - Reem Hoteit
- Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Tarek Harb
- Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Ola El Zein
- University Libraries, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Thomas Piggott
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- Department of Family Medicine, Queens University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - Jad Melki
- Institute of Media Research and Training, Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Reem A Mustafa
- Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, United States
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Elie A Akl
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Akl EA, El Khoury R, Khamis AM, El Mikati IK, Pardo-Hernandez H, Farran S, Ibrahim R, Khamis M, Hneiny L, Schunemann HJ, Kahale LA. The life and death of living systematic reviews: a methodological survey. J Clin Epidemiol 2023; 156:11-21. [PMID: 36764466 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.02.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2022] [Revised: 01/31/2023] [Accepted: 02/02/2023] [Indexed: 02/11/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study are to describe the characteristics of living systematic reviews (LSRs) and to understand their life cycles. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We conducted a comprehensive search up to April 2021 then selected articles and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We undertook descriptive analyses and calculated delay in version update and delay since the last published version. RESULTS We included 76 eligible LSRs with a total of 279 eligible versions. The majority of LSRs was from the clinical field (70%), was COVID-19 related (63%), and had a funding source specified (62%). The median number of versions per LSR was 2 (interquartile range (IQR) 1-4; range 1-19). The median and IQR for the ratio of the actual period of update to the planned period of update was 1.12 (0.81; 1.71). Out of all reviews with a 'planned period of update' and at least one update (N = 19), eight LSRs (42%) had a period since last published version greater than 3 times the planned period of update. No LSR included a 'retirement notice' in their latest published version. CONCLUSION While most LSR complied with the planned period of producing updates, a substantive proportion lagged since their last update.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elie A Akl
- Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, 1280 Main Street West 2C Area, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Rayane El Khoury
- Infectious Disease Epidemiology Group, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Cornell University, Qatar Foundation - Education City, Doha, Qatar; World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Disease Epidemiology Analytics on HIV/AIDS, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and Viral Hepatitis, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Cornell University, Qatar Foundation - Education City, Doha, Qatar
| | - Assem M Khamis
- Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK
| | - Ibrahim K El Mikati
- Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | - Hector Pardo-Hernandez
- Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Sant Pau Biomedical Research Institute, Barcelona, C/Sant Quintí, Spain; CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Madrid, Av. de Monforte de Lemos, 5, 28029 Spain
| | - Sarah Farran
- Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Department, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Riad El Solh, 1107 2020 Lebanon
| | | | - Mohamed Khamis
- Emergency Medicine Department, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Riad El Solh, 1107 2020 Lebanon
| | - Layal Hneiny
- Wegner Health Sciences Library, University of South Dakota, 1400 W 22nd St, Sioux Falls, SD 57106, USA
| | - Holger J Schunemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, 1280 Main Street West 2C Area, Ontario, Canada; MGD DeGroote Cochrane Canada and McGRADE Centers, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, 1280 Main Street West 2C Area, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, 1280 Main Street West 2C Area, Canada; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090 Pieve Emanuele (Milano), Italy; Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Lara A Kahale
- Cochrane Central Executive, Cochrane, London, St Albans House, 57-59, Haymarket, London SW1Y 4QX, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
El Mikati IK, Morgan RL, Murad MH, Sultan S, Falck-Ytter Y, Mustafa RA. Testing guidelines during times of crisis: challenges and limitations of developing rapid and living guidelines. Clin Microbiol Infect 2023; 29:424-428. [PMID: 36736663 PMCID: PMC9892317 DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2023.01.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2022] [Revised: 12/30/2022] [Accepted: 01/21/2023] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The start of the COVID-19 pandemic presented a situation in which there was an urgent need for decision-making that relates to diagnosis, but the evidence was lacking, of low certainty or constantly changing. Rapid and living guideline development methods were needed and had to be applied to rigorous guideline approaches, such as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. OBJECTIVES To describe the process of developing rapid diagnosis guidelines when there is limited and imperfect available data at the time of crisis. SOURCES Case example from four Infectious Disease Society of America COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines. CONTENT As the world was experiencing panic with COVID-19, there were serious doubts about the feasibility of following a rigorous process for guideline development when timeliness was of extreme value. The Infectious Disease Society of America guideline panels supported by several methodologists strongly believed that at times of crisis, it is more important than ever to follow a rigorous process. The panel adopted a rapid and living systematic review methodology and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to four diagnosis guidelines despite the challenges of scarce and dynamic evidence. We describe the methodological details of the rapid and living approach (data extraction, meta-analysis, Evidence to Decision framework, and recommendation development), the challenge of resources, the challenge of scarce evidence, the challenge of rapidly changing evidence, as well as 'wins' from the Infectious Disease Society of America experience. IMPLICATIONS Mitigation of pandemics relies on rapid and accurate diagnosis, which is challenged by many knowledge gaps. This necessitates emerging evidence is rapidly incorporated in a living fashion with several decisional and contextual factors to ensure the best public health strategies and care for patients. This process must be systematic and transparent for developing trustworthy guidelines and should be supported by all stakeholders, including researchers, editors, publishers, professional societies, and policymakers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ibrahim K. El Mikati
- Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | - Rebecca L. Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada,School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - M. Hassan Murad
- Division of Public Health, Infectious Diseases and Occupational Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Shahnaz Sultan
- Division of Gastroenterology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - Yngve Falck-Ytter
- School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA,VA Northeast Ohio Health Care System, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Reem A. Mustafa
- Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA,Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada,Departments of Internal Medicine and Population Health, University of Kansas Medical Centre, Kansas City, KS, USA,Corresponding author. Reem A. Mustafa, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Hayden MK, Hanson KE, Englund JA, Lee F, Lee MJ, Loeb M, Morgan DJ, Patel R, El Alayli A, El Mikati IK, Sultan S, Falck-Ytter Y, Mansour R, Amarin JZ, Morgan RL, Murad MH, Patel P, Bhimraj A, Mustafa RA. The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing. Clin Infect Dis 2023:ciad032. [PMID: 36702617 DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciad032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2023] [Accepted: 01/13/2023] [Indexed: 01/28/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND 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. OBJECTIVE The 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 non-medical settings. METHODS 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 April 1, 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS The panel made ten diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies. CONCLUSIONS U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared to 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 contrast, Ag tests have high specificity, and, 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 to testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remains the testing method 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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary K Hayden
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Pathology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Kimberly E Hanson
- Divisions of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Janet A Englund
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
| | - Francesca Lee
- Departments of Pathology and Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Mark J Lee
- Department of Pathology and Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Mark Loeb
- Division of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario
| | - Daniel J Morgan
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Robin Patel
- Division of Clinical Microbiology, Division of Public Health, Infectious Diseases, and Occupational Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Abdallah El Alayli
- Department of Internal Medicine, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri
| | - Ibrahim K El Mikati
- Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Shahnaz Sultan
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis VA Healthcare System, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Yngve Falck-Ytter
- Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio
- VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Razan Mansour
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Justin Z Amarin
- Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Rebecca L Morgan
- Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - M Hassan Murad
- Division of Public Health, Infectious diseases and occupational Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Payal Patel
- Department of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Adarsh Bhimraj
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Reem A Mustafa
- Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
El Mikati IK, Khabsa J, Harb T, Khamis M, Agarwal A, Pardo-Hernandez H, Farran S, Khamis AM, El Zein O, El-Khoury R, Schünemann HJ, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, Alper BS, Amer YS, Arayssi T, Barker JM, Bouakl I, Boutron I, Brignardello-Petersen R, Carandang K, Chang S, Chen Y, Cuker A, El-Jardali F, Florez I, Ford N, Grove J, Guyatt GH, Hazlewood GS, Kredo T, Lamontagne F, Langendam MW, Lewin S, Macdonald H, McFarlane E, Meerpohl J, Munn Z, Murad MH, Mustafa RA, Neumann I, Nieuwlaat R, Nowak A, Pardo JP, Qaseem A, Rada G, Righini M, Rochwerg B, Rojas-Reyes MX, Siegal D, Siemieniuk R, Singh JA, Skoetz N, Sultan S, Synnot A, Tugwell P, Turner A, Turner T, Venkatachalam S, Welch V, Wiercioch W. A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care. Ann Intern Med 2022; 175:1154-1160. [PMID: 35785533 DOI: 10.7326/m22-0514] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence. OBJECTIVE To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care. DESIGN First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders. SETTING International. PARTICIPANTS Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines. MEASUREMENTS Not applicable. RESULTS A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication. LIMITATION This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented. CONCLUSION The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE None.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ibrahim K El Mikati
- Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon (I.K.M., J.K.)
| | - Joanne Khabsa
- Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon (I.K.M., J.K.)
| | - Tarek Harb
- Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon (T.H.)
| | - Mohamed Khamis
- Emergency Medicine Department, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon (M.K.)
| | - Arnav Agarwal
- Department of Medicine and Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation, Oslo, Norway (A.A.)
| | - Hector Pardo-Hernandez
- Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Sant Pau Biomedical Research Institute, Barcelona, and CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Madrid, Spain (H.P.)
| | - Sarah Farran
- Clinical Pathology Department, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon (S.F.)
| | - Assem M Khamis
- Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom (A.M.K.)
| | - Ola El Zein
- Saab Medical Library, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon (O.E.)
| | - Rayane El-Khoury
- Infectious Disease Epidemiology Group and World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Disease Epidemiology Analytics on HIV/AIDS, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and Viral Hepatitis, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Cornell University, Qatar Foundation - Education City, Doha, Qatar (R.E.)
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- Department of Medicine and Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (H.J.S.)
| | - Elie A Akl
- Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon, and Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (E.A.A.)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|