Preterm birth is the leading cause of child mortality globally, with many survivors experiencing long-term adverse consequences. Preliminary evidence suggests that numbers of preterm births greatly reduced following implementation of policy measures aimed at mitigating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to study the impact of the COVID-19 mitigation measures implemented in the Netherlands in a stepwise fashion on March 9, March 15, and March 23, 2020, on the incidence of preterm birth. We used a national quasi-experimental difference-in-regression-discontinuity approach. We used data from the neonatal dried blood spot screening programme (2010–20) cross-validated against national perinatal registry data. Stratified analyses were done according to gestational age subgroups, and sensitivity analyses were done to assess robustness of the findings. We explored potential effect modification by neighbourhood socioeconomic status, sex, and small-for-gestational-age status. Data on 1 599 547 singleton neonates were available, including 56 720 births that occurred after implementation of COVID-19 mitigation measures on March 9, 2020. Consistent reductions in the incidence of preterm birth were seen across various time windows surrounding March 9 (± 2 months [n=531 823] odds ratio [OR] 0·77, 95% CI 0·66–0·91, p=0·0026; ± 3 months [n=796 531] OR 0·85, 0·73–0·98, p=0·028; ± 4 months [n=1 066 872] OR 0·84, 0·73–0·97, p=0·023). Decreases in incidence observed following the March 15 measures were of smaller magnitude, but not statistically significant. No changes were observed after March 23. Reductions in the incidence of preterm births after March 9 were consistent across gestational age strata and robust in sensitivity analyses. They appeared confined to neighbourhoods of high socioeconomic status, but effect modification was not statistically significant. In this national quasi-experimental study, initial implementation of COVID-19 mitigation measures was associated with a substantial reduction in the incidence of preterm births in the following months, in agreement with preliminary observations elsewhere. Integration of comparable data from across the globe is needed to further substantiate these findings and start exploring underlying mechanisms. None.

In diagnostic studies, a single and error-free test that can be used as the reference (gold) standard often does not exist. One solution is the use of panel diagnosis, i.e., a group of experts who assess the results from multiple tests to reach a final diagnosis in each patient. Although panel diagnosis, also known as consensus or expert diagnosis, is frequently used as the reference standard, guidance on preferred methodology is lacking. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of methods used in panel diagnoses and to provide initial guidance on the use and reporting of panel diagnosis as reference standard. PubMed was systematically searched for diagnostic studies applying a panel diagnosis as reference standard published up to May 31, 2012. We included diagnostic studies in which the final diagnosis was made by two or more persons based on results from multiple tests. General study characteristics and details of panel methodology were extracted. Eighty-one studies were included, of which most reported on psychiatry (37%) and cardiovascular (21%) diseases. Data extraction was hampered by incomplete reporting; one or more pieces of critical information about panel reference standard methodology was missing in 83% of studies. In most studies (75%), the panel consisted of three or fewer members. Panel members were blinded to the results of the index test results in 31% of studies. Reproducibility of the decision process was assessed in 17 (21%) studies. Reported details on panel constitution, information for diagnosis and methods of decision making varied considerably between studies. Methods of panel diagnosis varied substantially across studies and many aspects of the procedure were either unclear or not reported. On the basis of our review, we identified areas for improvement and developed a checklist and flow chart for initial guidance for researchers conducting and reporting of studies involving panel diagnosis. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary Before any disease or condition can be treated, a correct diagnosis of the condition has to be made. Faced with a patient with medical problems and no diagnosis, a doctor will ask the patient about their symptoms and medical history and generally will examine the patient. On the basis of this questioning and examination, the clinician will form an initial impression of the possible conditions the patient may have, usually with a most likely diagnosis in mind. To support or reject the most likely diagnosis and to exclude the other possible diagnoses, the clinician will then order a series of tests and diagnostic procedures. These may include laboratory tests (such as the measurement of blood sugar levels), imaging procedures (such as an MRI scan), or functional tests (such as spirometry, which tests lung function). Finally, the clinician will use all the data s/he has collected to reach a firm diagnosis and will recommend a program of treatment or observation for the patient. Researchers are continually looking for new, improved diagnostic tests and multivariable diagnostic models—combinations of tests and characteristics that point to a diagnosis. Diagnostic research, which assesses the accuracy of new tests and models, requires that each patient involved in a diagnostic study has a final correct diagnosis. Unfortunately, for most conditions, there is no single, error-free test that can be used as the reference (gold) standard for diagnosis. If an imperfect reference standard is used, errors in the final disease classification may bias the results of the diagnostic study and may lead to a new test being adopted that is actually less accurate than existing tests. One widely used solution to the lack of a reference standard is “panel diagnosis” in which two or more experts assess the results from multiple tests to reach a final diagnosis for each patient in a diagnostic study. However, there is currently no formal guidance available on the conduct and reporting of panel diagnosis. Here, the researchers undertake a systematic review (a study that uses predefined criteria to identify research on a given topic) to provide an overview of the methodology and reporting of panel diagnosis. The researchers identified 81 published diagnostic studies that used panel diagnosis as a reference standard. 37% of these studies reported on psychiatric diseases, 21% reported on cardiovascular diseases, and 12% reported on respiratory diseases. Most of the studies (64%) were designed to assess the accuracy of one or more diagnostic test. Notably, one or more critical piece of information on methodology was missing in 83% of the studies. Specifically, information on the constitution of the panel was missing in a quarter of the studies and information on the decision-making process (whether, for example, a diagnosis was reached by discussion among panel members or by combining individual panel member's assessments) was incomplete in more than two-thirds of the studies. In three-quarters of the studies for which information was available, the panel consisted of only two or three members; different fields of expertise were represented in the panels in nearly two-thirds of the studies. In a third of the studies for which information was available, panel members made their diagnoses without access to the results of the test being assessed. Finally, the reproducibility of the decision-making process was assessed in a fifth of the studies. These findings indicate that the methodology of panel diagnosis varies substantially among diagnostic studies and that reporting of this methodology is often unclear or absent. Both the methodology and reporting of panel diagnosis could, therefore, be improved substantially. Based on their findings, the researchers provide a checklist and flow chart to help guide the conduct and reporting of studies involving panel diagnosis. For example, they suggest that, when designing a study that uses panel diagnosis as the reference standard, the number and background of panel members should be considered, and they provide a list of options that should be considered when planning the decision-making process. Although more research into each of the options identified by the researchers is needed, their recommendations provide a starting point for the development of formal guidelines on the methodology and reporting of panel diagnosis for use as a reference standard in diagnostic research. Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001531.

Combining several tests is a common way to improve the final classification of disease status in diagnostic accuracy studies but is often used ambiguously. This article gives advice on proper use and reporting of composite reference standards

Background: chronic dyspnoea is common in older people and is often of cardiac or pulmonary aetiology. Information on the exact prevalence and distribution of underlying causes is scarce. Our aim was to review the literature on prevalence and underlying causes of dyspnoea in the older population. Methods: two MEDLINE searches were conducted: the first on studies on the prevalence of dyspnoea in older persons aged ≥65 years using the Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea scale and the second on the underlying causes of dyspnoea in this population. Quality assessment was performed for all included studies. Random effects models based on the logit transformed prevalences were used to calculate pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results: a total of 21 articles from 20 different populations reported the prevalence in the general older population with a median sample size of 600 (Interquartile range 262–1289). The pooled prevalence was 36% (95% CI: 27–47%) for an MRC of ≥2, 16% (95% CI: 12–21%) for an MRC of ≥3 and 4% (95% CI: 2–9%) for an MRC of ≥4. Prevalence rates were higher in women than in men. Only one article investigated the underlying causes of dyspnoea in older persons; in 70% of these patients, the dyspnoea was considered to be of cardiac or pulmonary origin. Conclusion: dyspnoea is very common in older people, but estimates vary considerably between studies. Only one study describes the underlying causes.

Peer reviewed article authored by (Bertens LCM, Reitsma JB, Moons KGM, van Mourik Y, Lammers JWJ, Broekhuizen BDL, Hoes AW, Rutten FH). Read article or submit your manuscript for publishing.