METHODS: From February 2014 to January 2015, 214 patients underwent DM and DBT, acquired with a Siemens Mammomat Inspiration unit. 2 expert readers independently reviewed the studies in 2 steps: DM and DM+DBT, according to BI-RADS rate. Patients with BI-RADS 0, 3, 4, and 5 were recalled for work-up. Inter-reader agreement for BI-RADS rate and work-up rate were evaluated using Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS: Inter-reader agreement (κ value) for BI-RADS classification was 0.58 for DM and 0.8 for DM+DBT. DM+DBT increased the number of BI-RADS 1, 2, 4, 5 and reduced the number of BI-RADS 0 and 3 for both readers compared to DM alone. Regarding work-up rate agreement, κ was poor for DM and substantial (0.7) for DM+DBT. DM+DBT also reduced the work-up rate for both Reader 1 and Reader 2.

Method: Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science (all databases) were searched by 2 reviewers until 29th October 2020. Articles were screened and narratively synthesized according to PRISMA-DTA guidelines based on predefined eligibility criteria. Articles that made direct reference test comparisons to human clinicians were evaluated using the MI-CLAIM checklist. The risk of bias was assessed by JBI-DTA critical appraisal, and certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Information regarding the quantification method of dental pain and disease, the conditional characteristics of both training and test data cohort in the machine learning, diagnostic outcomes, and diagnostic test comparisons with clinicians, where applicable, were extracted.

Results: 34 eligible articles were found for data synthesis, of which 8 articles made direct reference comparisons to human clinicians. 7 papers scored over 13 (out of the evaluated 15 points) in the MI-CLAIM approach with all papers scoring 5+ (out of 7) in JBI-DTA appraisals. GRADE approach revealed serious risks of bias and inconsistencies with most studies containing more positive cases than their true prevalence in order to facilitate machine learning. Patient-perceived symptoms and clinical history were generally found to be less reliable than radiographs or histology for training accurate machine learning models. A low agreement level between clinicians training the models was suggested to have a negative impact on the prediction accuracy. Reference comparisons found nonspecialized clinicians with less than 3 years of experience to be disadvantaged against trained models.

METHODS: The concordance rate, sensitivity and specificity of the duplex ddPCR assay were determined and compared to nested PCR and duplex qPCR.

RESULTS: The duplex ddPCR assay had higher analytical sensitivity (P. vivax = 10 copies/µL and P. knowlesi = 0.01 copies/µL) compared to qPCR (P. vivax = 100 copies/µL and P. knowlesi = 10 copies/µL). Moreover, the ddPCR assay had acceptable clinical sensitivity (P. vivax = 80% and P. knowlesi = 90%) and clinical specificity (P. vivax = 87.84% and P. knowlesi = 81.08%) when compared to nested PCR. Both ddPCR and qPCR detected more double infections in the samples.

METHODS: A series of qualitative interviews were conducted with policy makers and healthcare providers in four vivax-endemic countries. Routine G6PD testing is not part of current policy in Bangladesh, Cambodia or China, but it is in Malaysia. The interviews were analysed with regard to respondents perceptions of vivax malaria, -primaquine based treatment for malaria and the complexities of G6PD deficiency.

RESULTS: Three barriers to the roll-out of routine G6PD testing were identified in all sites: (a) a perceived low risk of drug-induced haemolysis; (b) the perception that vivax malaria was benign and accordingly treatment with primaquine was not regarded as a priority; and, (c) the additional costs of introducing routine testing. In Malaysia, respondents considered the current test and treat algorithm suitable and the need for an alternative approach was only considered relevant in highly mobile and hard to reach populations.