Diagnostic accuracy and safety of inhalation challenge tests for bird fancier’s lung—Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

Objective To assess the diagnostic accuracy of inhalation challenge tests for bird fancier's lung and related adverse reactions. Design We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis for the diagnostic test accuracy of inhalation challenge tests and a systematic review for adverse events of the tests. We evaluated the risk of bias and applicability of the included articles for diagnostic test accuracy with the modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies‐2 tool. We used hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curve analysis to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of challenge tests and assessed subjective adverse reactions and steroid treatment use. Sensitivity was calculated by fixing specificity at 99% from the HSROC curve. Data sources We searched for articles evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of inhalation challenge tests or describing adverse reactions in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We included randomized control trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, or case‐control studies assessing the diagnostic test accuracy of inhalation challenge tests for bird fancier's lung. For adverse effects review, we included the same articles, and case series or case reports reporting adverse reactions of inhalation challenge tests. Results In our review of 12 articles, the diagnostic accuracy of inhalation challenge tests was substantially high. Point estimate of sensitivity when calculated with a fixed specificity of 99% was 99%. Among 873 patients, 6 needed steroid treatment for adverse reactions; however, no death occurred due to acute exacerbation following a challenge test. Conclusions Inhalation challenges for bird fancier's lung could be accurate and safe diagnostic procedures and may be considered both as rule‐in and rule‐out tests in tertiary care centres. However, caution is required regarding overestimation of diagnostic yield due to risk of bias. Systematic review registration: University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000038799).

An open competition involving thousands of competitors failed to construct useful abstract classifiers for new diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews

“…To address topics other than COVID-19, we used several previous DTA systematic reviews, including those on malignancy, 18 gastrointestinal disorders, 19 respiratory disorders, 20 emergency care, 21,22 neurology, [23][24][25] and infectious disease. 26,27 Some search data were not stored in a reusable form, and fewer records were included than those retrieved for the original studies.…”

Developments in the field of allergy in 2020 through the eyes of Clinical and Experimental Allergy

“…Systematic reviews and other forms of evidence synthesis can help bring clarity to important scientific questions. In 2020, we published several systematic reviews-from specific issues such as the diagnostic accuracy of inhalant challenge tests for bird fancier's lung 7 to reviews of biologics, [8][9][10] the potential relationship between allergy and malignancy 11 and anxiety related to food allergy. 12 The contribution of systematic reviews is often to reflect on inadequacies in the literature, whether in terms of methodological rigour or unstudied areas-for example, the finding that there are gaps in the evidence base for hydrolysed formulas for managing formula-fed infants and young children with cow's milk allergy 13 Allergic rhinitis is one of the commonest allergic conditions and has significant associated comorbidities.…”