Performance of Confirmatory Tests for Diagnosing Primary Aldosteronism: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".