Performance of Confirmatory Tests for Diagnosing Primary Aldosteronism: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author:

Leung Alexander A.12ORCID,Symonds Christopher J.1,Hundemer Gregory L.3ORCID,Ronksley Paul E.2ORCID,Lorenzetti Diane L.2ORCID,Pasieka Janice L.45ORCID,Harvey Adrian45,Kline Gregory A.1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine (A.A.L., C.J.S., G.A.K.), University of Calgary, AB.

2. Department of Community Health Sciences (A.A.L., P.E.R., D.L.L.), University of Calgary, AB.

3. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, ON (G.L.H.).

4. Department of Surgery (J.L.P., A.H.), University of Calgary, AB.

5. Department of Oncology (J.L.P., A.H.), University of Calgary, AB.

Abstract

Background: Confirmatory tests are recommended for diagnosing primary aldosteronism, but the supporting evidence is unclear. Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies evaluating any guideline-recommended confirmatory test (ie, saline infusion test, salt loading test, fludrocortisone suppression test, and captopril challenge test), compared with a reference standard were included. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models. Results: Fifty-five studies were included, comprising 26 studies (3654 participants) for the recumbent saline infusion test, 4 studies (633 participants) for the seated saline infusion test, 2 studies (99 participants) for the salt loading test, 7 studies (386 participants) for the fludrocortisone suppression test, and 25 studies (2585 participants) for the captopril challenge test. Risk of bias was high, affecting more than half of studies, and across all domains. Studies with case-control sampling overestimated accuracy by 7-fold (relative diagnostic odds ratio, 7.26 [95% CI, 2.46–21.43]) and partial verification or use of inconsistent reference standards overestimated accuracy by 5-fold (5.12 [95% CI, 1.48–17.77]). There were large variations in how confirmatory tests were conducted, interpreted, and verified. Under most scenarios, confirmatory testing resulted in an excess of missed cases. The certainty of evidence underlying each test (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) was very low. Conclusions: Recommendations for confirmatory testing in patients with abnormal screening tests and high probability features of primary aldosteronism are based on very low-quality evidence and their routine use should be reconsidered.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Internal Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3