The standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy for studies in journal or conference abstracts (STARD for Abstracts) was developed for guiding the reporting of abstracts of diagnostic accuracy studies, which was published in BMJ in August 2017. The study mainly introduced and interpreted the items of STARD for Abstracts, in order to help domestic researchers to perform and report the abstracts of diagnostic accuracy studies by STARD for Abstracts.
ObjectiveTo study and compare the effects of inhaled preparations with open airway and conventional inhaled preparation on asthma patients.MethodsThe patients diagnosed with asthma and treated with the same inhaled preparation only who visited the outpatient department of West China Hospital of Sichuan University, were selected as the study subjects from April to September, 2019. The subjects were divided into the test group and the control group according to random ratio 1∶1. The conventional inhaled preparations were used in the control group. The inhaled preparations with open airway were used in the test group. Asthma control, life quality and treatment satisfaction rate were compared between the two groups after 3 months.ResultsA total of 150 subjects were included and one case dropped-off, then 149 effective subjects were obtained in which 75 cases in the test group and 74 cases in the control group. After 3 months’ treatment of inhaled preparations, the proportion of effective asthma control patients in the test group was higher than that in the control group, and the number of patients satisfied with the treatment of inhaled preparations was higher than that in the control group, with statistically significant differences (all P<0.05). The life quality of patients in both groups was improved compared with baseline, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). However, the increase of scores in the test group was more than that in the control group, and the difference was also statistically significant (P<0.05). ConclusionInhaed preparations with open airway is superior to conventional inhaled preparation on asthma patients in asthma control, life quality and treatment satisfaction rate.
ObjectivesTo assess the accuracy of different types and magnetic field intensity of cardiac magnetic resonance for coronary artery disease.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, WanFang Data, CNKI and CBM databases were searched to collect the studies on different types and magnetic field intensity of cardiac magnetic resonance for coronary artery disease from inception to May 15th, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, data were synthesized by using MetaDisc 1.4, RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 softwares. The pooled sensitivity (Sen), pooled specificity (Spe), pooled positive likelihood ratio (+LR), pooled negative likelihood ratio (–LR), pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the area under curve (AUC) of the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (SROC) were used to assess the diagnostic value of different types and magnetic field intensity of cardiac magnetic resonance.ResultsTwenty diagnostic studies were included, which involved 1 357 patients. The results of meta-analysis showed that (1) based on patient: compared with the gold standard, the pooled Sen, Spe, +LR, –LR, DOR and the AUC of SROC, pre-test probability, post-test probability were (0.87, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.90), (0.88, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.92), (7.33, 95%CI 4.74 to 11.32), (0.15, 95%CI 0.11 to 0.20), (49.53, 95%CI 27.46 to 89.36), (0.93, 95%CI 0.91 to 0.95), 20.00% and 65.00%, respectively. (2) Based on blood vessels: the pooled Sen, Spe, +LR, –LR, DOR and the AUC of SROC, pre-test probability, post-test probability were (0.81, 95%CI 0.76 to 0.85), (0.87, 95%CI 0.81 to 0.91), (6.37, 95%CI 4.37 to 9.30), (0.22, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.27), (29.58, 95%CI 18.53 to 47.22), (0.89, 95%CI 0.86 to 0.92), 20.00% and 61.00%, respectively. (3) Subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in AUROC of different types of cardiac magnetic resonance, but significant difference was found in AUROC of 1.5T and 3.0T magnetic field intensity.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that, compared with gold standard, cardiac magnetic resonance can be regarded as an effective and feasible method for preoperative staging of breast cancer.