Peanut allergy diagnosis: A 2020 practice parameter update, systematic review, and GRADE analysis

Given the burden of disease and the consequences of a diagnosis of peanut allergy, it is important that peanut allergy be accurately diagnosed so that an appropriate treatment plan can be developed. However, a test that indicates there is peanut sensitization present (eg, a "positive" test) is not always associated with clinical reactivity. This practice parameter addresses the diagnosis of IgE-mediated peanut allergy, both in children and adults, as pertaining to 3 fundamental questions, and based on the systematic reviews and meta-analyses, makes recommendations for the clinician who is evaluating a patient for peanut allergy. These questions relate to when diagnostic tests should be completed, which diagnostic tests to utilize, and the utility (or lack thereof) of diagnostic testing to predict the severity of a future allergic reaction to peanut.

Is volar locking plate superior to external fixation for distal radius fractures? A comprehensive meta-analysis

Objective

The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) and retrospective cohort studies (CS) regarding the use of volar locking plate (VLP) and external fixation (EF) in distal radius fractures was to determine whether there was any evidence that one treatment was superior to the other.

Methods

The meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electrical databases (PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library) were retrieved to find RCTs and CSs met the eligibility criteria. Two reviewers screened the studies, extracted the data and evaluated the methodological quality, and performed data analysis with RevMan 5.1. The publication bias was test by Stata 14.0. The Begg's and Egger's test were performed by Stata 14.0. The quality of evidence was graded according to the criteria of GRADE. We ultimately included ten RCTs and eleven CSs.

Results

A total of 1590 subjects were reported. Publication bias was detected by funnel plot in RCTs. VLP could provide better results such as DASH scores (RCT: MD = −6.12, 95%CI = −12.07–0.17; CS: MD = −6.43, 95%CI = −12.53–0.3), ulnar variance (RCT: MD = −0.81, 95%CI = −1.25–0.37) and infection rate (RCT: RR = 0.25, 95%CI = 0.10–0.65; CS: RR = 0.15, 95%CI = 0.06–0.40). There were no significant differences for G-W scores, VAS and grip strength between the VLP group and EF group. There was significantly greater loss of volar tilt (P = 0.01) and radial inclination (P = 0.02) in patients receiving EF, basing on the CSs.

Conclusions

VLP could provide better results, such as DASH scores, ulnar variance, volar tilt, radial inclination and infection rate. The use of VLP appear to be associated with better results of ROM (flexion, pronation, supination and radial deviation), radiographic parameters (volar tilt and radial inclination) and lower total complication rate and CRPS rate in CSs.

Level of evidence

Level 1, Therapeutic study.