Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Jon Deeks is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Jon Deeks.


BMJ | 2011

Relative effectiveness of clinic and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in diagnosis of hypertension: Systematic review

James Hodgkinson; Jonathan Mant; Una Martin; Boliang Guo; F. D. R. Hobbs; Jon Deeks; Carl Heneghan; Nia Roberts; Richard McManus

Objective To determine the relative accuracy of clinic measurements and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as a reference standard for the diagnosis of hypertension. Design Systematic review with meta-analysis with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models. Methodological quality was appraised, including evidence of validation of blood pressure measurement equipment. Data sources Medline (from 1966), Embase (from 1980), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, Medion, ARIF, and TRIP up to May 2010. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Eligible studies examined diagnosis of hypertension in adults of all ages using home and/or clinic blood pressure measurement compared with those made using ambulatory monitoring that clearly defined thresholds to diagnose hypertension. Results The 20 eligible studies used various thresholds for the diagnosis of hypertension, and only seven studies (clinic) and three studies (home) could be directly compared with ambulatory monitoring. Compared with ambulatory monitoring thresholds of 135/85 mm Hg, clinic measurements over 140/90 mm Hg had mean sensitivity and specificity of 74.6% (95% confidence interval 60.7% to 84.8%) and 74.6% (47.9% to 90.4%), respectively, whereas home measurements over 135/85 mm Hg had mean sensitivity and specificity of 85.7% (78.0% to 91.0%) and 62.4% (48.0% to 75.0%). Conclusions Neither clinic nor home measurement had sufficient sensitivity or specificity to be recommended as a single diagnostic test. If ambulatory monitoring is taken as the reference standard, then treatment decisions based on clinic or home blood pressure alone might result in substantial overdiagnosis. Ambulatory monitoring before the start of lifelong drug treatment might lead to more appropriate targeting of treatment, particularly around the diagnostic threshold.


The Lancet | 2013

Percutaneous vesicoamniotic shunting versus conservative management for fetal lower urinary tract obstruction (PLUTO): a randomised trial.

Rk Morris; Gl Malin; Elisabeth Quinlan-Jones; Lee J Middleton; Karla Hemming; Danielle L. Burke; Jane P Daniels; Khalid S. Khan; Jon Deeks; Mark D. Kilby

Summary Background Fetal lower urinary tract obstruction (LUTO) is associated with high perinatal and long-term childhood mortality and morbidity. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of vesicoamniotic shunting for treatment of LUTO. Methods In a randomised trial in the UK, Ireland, and the Netherlands, women whose pregnancies with a male fetus were complicated by isolated LUTO were randomly assigned by a central telephone and web-based randomisation service to receive either the intervention (placement of vesicoamniotic shunt) or conservative management. Allocation could not be masked from clinicians or participants because of the invasive nature of the intervention. Diagnosis was by prenatal ultrasound. The primary outcome was survival of the baby to 28 days postnatally. All primary analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, but these results were compared with those of an as-treated analysis to investigate the effect of a fairly large proportion of crossovers. We used Bayesian methods to estimate the posterior probability distribution of the effectiveness of vesicoamniotic shunting at 28 days. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Register, number ISRCTN53328556. Findings 31 women with singleton pregnancies complicated by LUTO were included in the trial and main analysis, with 16 allocated to the vesicoamniotic shunt group and 15 to the conservative management group. The study closed early because of poor recruitment. There were 12 livebirths in each group. In the vesicoamniotic shunt group one intrauterine death occurred and three pregnancies were terminated. In the conservative management group one intrauterine death occurred and two pregnancies were terminated. Of the 16 pregnancies randomly assigned to vesicoamniotic shunting, eight neonates survived to 28 days, compared with four from the 15 pregnancies assigned to conservative management (intention-to-treat relative risk [RR] 1·88, 95% CI 0·71–4·96; p=0·27). Analysis based on treatment received showed a larger effect (3·20, 1·06–9·62; p=0·03). All 12 deaths were caused by pulmonary hypoplasia in the early neonatal period. Sensitivity analysis in which non-treatment-related terminations of pregnancy were excluded made some slight changes to point estimates only. Bayesian analysis in which the trial data were combined with elicited priors from experts suggested an 86% probability that vesicoamniotic shunting increased survival at 28 days and a 25% probability that it had a large, clinically important effect (defined as a relative increase of 55% or more in the proportion of neonates who survived). There was substantial short-term and long-term morbidity in both groups, including poor renal function—only two babies (both in the shunt group) survived to 2 years with normal renal function. Seven complications occurred in six fetuses from the shunt group, including spontaneous ruptured membranes, shunt blockage, and dislodgement. These complications resulted in four pregnancy losses. Interpretation Survival seemed to be higher in the fetuses receiving vesicoamniotic shunting, but the size and direction of the effect remained uncertain, such that benefit could not be conclusively proven. Our results suggest that the chance of newborn babies surviving with normal renal function is very low irrespective of whether or not vesicoamniotic shunting is done. Funding UK National Institute of Health Research, Wellbeing of Women, Hannah Eliza Guy Charity (Birmingham Childrens Hospital Charity).


BMJ | 2012

Diagnostic accuracy of spot urinary protein and albumin to creatinine ratios for detection of significant proteinuria or adverse pregnancy outcome in patients with suspected pre-eclampsia: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rk Morris; Richard D Riley; M. Doug; Jon Deeks; Kilby

Objective To determine the diagnostic accuracy of two “spot urine” tests for significant proteinuria or adverse pregnancy outcome in pregnant women with suspected pre-eclampsia. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Searches of electronic databases 1980 to January 2011, reference list checking, hand searching of journals, and contact with experts. Inclusion criteria Diagnostic studies, in pregnant women with hypertension, that compared the urinary spot protein to creatinine ratio or albumin to creatinine ratio with urinary protein excretion over 24 hours or adverse pregnancy outcome. Study characteristics, design, and methodological and reporting quality were objectively assessed. Data extraction Study results relating to diagnostic accuracy were extracted and synthesised using multivariate random effects meta-analysis methods. Results Twenty studies, testing 2978 women (pregnancies), were included. Thirteen studies examining protein to creatinine ratio for the detection of significant proteinuria were included in the multivariate analysis. Threshold values for protein to creatinine ratio ranged between 0.13 and 0.5, with estimates of sensitivity ranging from 0.65 to 0.89 and estimates of specificity from 0.63 to 0.87; the area under the summary receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.69. On average, across all studies, the optimum threshold (that optimises sensitivity and specificity combined) seems to be between 0.30 and 0.35 inclusive. However, no threshold gave a summary estimate above 80% for both sensitivity and specificity, and considerable heterogeneity existed in diagnostic accuracy across studies at most thresholds. No studies looked at protein to creatinine ratio and adverse pregnancy outcome. For albumin to creatinine ratio, meta-analysis was not possible. Results from a single study suggested that the most predictive result, for significant proteinuria, was with the DCA 2000 quantitative analyser (>2 mg/mmol) with a summary sensitivity of 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.86 to 0.98) and a specificity of 0.94 (0.87 to 0.98). In a single study of adverse pregnancy outcome, results for perinatal death were a sensitivity of 0.82 (0.48 to 0.98) and a specificity of 0.59 (0.51 to 0.67). Conclusion The maternal “spot urine” estimate of protein to creatinine ratio shows promising diagnostic value for significant proteinuria in suspected pre-eclampsia. The existing evidence is not, however, sufficient to determine how protein to creatinine ratio should be used in clinical practice, owing to the heterogeneity in test accuracy and prevalence across studies. Insufficient evidence is available on the use of albumin to creatinine ratio in this area. Insufficient evidence exists for either test to predict adverse pregnancy outcome.


BMJ | 2012

Accuracy of single progesterone test to predict early pregnancy outcome in women with pain or bleeding: meta-analysis of cohort studies

J. Verhaegen; Ioannis D. Gallos; N.M. van Mello; M. Abdel-Aziz; Yemisi Takwoingi; Hoda M Harb; Jon Deeks; Ben Willem J. Mol; Arri Coomarasamy

Objective To determine the accuracy with which a single progesterone measurement in early pregnancy discriminates between viable and non-viable pregnancy. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Data sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, ProQuest, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and the Cochrane Library from inception until April 2012, plus reference lists of relevant studies. Study selection Studies were selected on the basis of participants (women with spontaneous pregnancy of less than 14 weeks of gestation); test (single serum progesterone measurement); outcome (viable intrauterine pregnancy, miscarriage, or ectopic pregnancy) diagnosed on the basis of combinations of pregnancy test, ultrasound scan, laparoscopy, and histological examination; design (cohort studies of test accuracy); and sufficient data being reported. Results 26 cohort studies, including 9436 pregnant women, were included, consisting of 7 studies in women with symptoms and inconclusive ultrasound assessment and 19 studies in women with symptoms alone. Among women with symptoms and inconclusive ultrasound assessments, the progesterone test (5 studies with 1998 participants and cut-off values from 3.2 to 6 ng/mL) predicted a non-viable pregnancy with pooled sensitivity of 74.6% (95% confidence interval 50.6% to 89.4%), specificity of 98.4% (90.9% to 99.7%), positive likelihood ratio of 45 (7.1 to 289), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.26 (0.12 to 0.57). The median prevalence of a non-viable pregnancy was 73.2%, and the probability of a non-viable pregnancy was raised to 99.2% if the progesterone was low. For women with symptoms alone, the progesterone test had a higher specificity when a threshold of 10 ng/mL was used (9 studies with 4689 participants) and predicted a non-viable pregnancy with pooled sensitivity of 66.5% (53.6% to 77.4%), specificity of 96.3% (91.1% to 98.5%), positive likelihood ratio of 18 (7.2 to 45), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.35 (0.24 to 0.50). The probability of a non-viable pregnancy was raised from 62.9% to 96.8%. Conclusion A single progesterone measurement for women in early pregnancy presenting with bleeding or pain and inconclusive ultrasound assessments can rule out a viable pregnancy.


BMC Medicine | 2015

The science of clinical practice: disease diagnosis or patient prognosis? Evidence about "what is likely to happen" should shape clinical practice.

Peter Croft; Douglas G. Altman; Jon Deeks; Kate M. Dunn; Alastair D Hay; Harry Hemingway; Linda LeResche; George Peat; Pablo Perel; Steffen E. Petersen; Richard D Riley; Ian Roberts; Michael Sharpe; Richard L. Stevens; D.A.W.M. van der Windt; M. Von Korff; Adam Timmis

BackgroundDiagnosis is the traditional basis for decision-making in clinical practice. Evidence is often lacking about future benefits and harms of these decisions for patients diagnosed with and without disease. We propose that a model of clinical practice focused on patient prognosis and predicting the likelihood of future outcomes may be more useful.DiscussionDisease diagnosis can provide crucial information for clinical decisions that influence outcome in serious acute illness. However, the central role of diagnosis in clinical practice is challenged by evidence that it does not always benefit patients and that factors other than disease are important in determining patient outcome. The concept of disease as a dichotomous ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is challenged by the frequent use of diagnostic indicators with continuous distributions, such as blood sugar, which are better understood as contributing information about the probability of a patient’s future outcome. Moreover, many illnesses, such as chronic fatigue, cannot usefully be labelled from a disease-diagnosis perspective. In such cases, a prognostic model provides an alternative framework for clinical practice that extends beyond disease and diagnosis and incorporates a wide range of information to predict future patient outcomes and to guide decisions to improve them. Such information embraces non-disease factors and genetic and other biomarkers which influence outcome.SummaryPatient prognosis can provide the framework for modern clinical practice to integrate information from the expanding biological, social, and clinical database for more effective and efficient care.


Trials | 2016

Bypass versus angio plasty in severe ischaemia of the leg - 2 (BASIL-2) trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Matthew Popplewell; Huw Davies; Hugh Jarrett; Gareth R. Bate; Margaret Grant; Smitaa Patel; Samir Mehta; Lazaros Andronis; Tracy E Roberts; Jon Deeks; Andrew W. Bradbury

BackgroundSevere limb ischaemia is defined by ischaemic rest/night pain, tissue loss, or both, secondary to arterial insufficiency and is increasingly caused by infra-popliteal (below the knee) disease, mainly as a result of the increasing worldwide prevalence of diabetes. Currently, it is unknown whether vein bypass surgery or the best endovascular treatment (angioplasty or stenting) represents the optimal revascularisation strategy in terms of amputation-free survival, overall survival, relief of symptoms, quality of life and cost-effective use of health care resources.Methods/DesignThe Bypass vs. Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg - 2 Trial is a UK National Institute of Health Research, Health Technology Assessment funded, multi-centre randomised controlled trial that compares, at the point of clinical equipoise, the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a ‘vein bypass first’ and a ‘best endovascular treatment first’ revascularisation strategy for severe limb ischaemia due to infra-popliteal disease. The primary clinical outcome is amputation-free survival defined as the time to major (above the ankle) amputation of the trial limb or death from any cause. The primary outcome for the cost-effectiveness analysis is cost per quality-adjusted life year. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, quality of life, in-hospital mortality and morbidity, repeat and crossover interventions, healing of tissue loss and haemodynamic changes following revascularisation. Sample size is estimated at 600 patients. An economic evaluation will be conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service and comprise a ‘within-study’ analysis, based on prospectively collected trial data and a ‘model-based’ analysis, which will extrapolate and compare costs and effects beyond the study follow-up period.DiscussionThe BASIL-2 trial is designed to be pragmatic and represent current practice within the United Kingdom. Patients with severe limb ischaemia can only be randomised into the trial where clinical equipose exists. The advent of hybrid operating procedures should not be a barrier to randomisation, should a patient require inflow correction prior to tibial revascularisation.Trial registrationISRCTN:27728689 Date of registration: 12 May 2014.


PLOS ONE | 2012

Hypoglycemia in non-diabetic in-patients: clinical or criminal?

Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar; Tom Marshall; James Hodson; Parth Narendran; Jon Deeks; Robin E. Ferner

Background and Aim We wished to establish the frequency of unexpected hypoglycemia observed in non diabetic patients outside the intensive care unit and to determine if they have a plausible clinical explanation. Methods We analysed data for 2010 from three distinct sources to identify non diabetic hypoglycaemic patients: bedside and laboratory blood glucose measurements; medication records for those treatments (high-strength glucose solution and glucagon) commonly given to reverse hypoglycemia; and diagnostic codes for hypoglycemia. We excluded from the denominator admissions of patients with a diagnosis of diabetes or prescribed diabetic medication. Case notes of patients identified were reviewed. We used capture-recapture methods to establish the likely frequency of hypoglycemia in non-diabetic in-patients outside intensive care unit at different cut-off points for hypoglycemia. We also recorded co-morbidities that might have given rise to hypoglycemia. Results Among the 37,898 admissions, the triggers identified 71 hypoglycaemic episodes at a cut-off of 3.3 mmol/l. Estimated frequency at 3.3 mmol/l was 50(CI 33–93), at 3.0 mmol/l, 36(CI 24–64), at 2.7 mmol/l, 13(CI 11–19), at 2.5 mmol/l, 11(CI 9–15) and at 2.2 mmol/l, 8(CI 7–11) per 10,000 admissions. Admissions of patients aged above 65 years were approximately 50% more likely to have an episode of hypoglycemia. Most were associated with important co-morbidities. Conclusion Significant non-diabetic hypoglycemia in hospital in–patients (at or below 2.7 mmol/l) outside critical care is rare. It is sufficiently rare for occurrences to merit case-note review and diagnostic blood tests, unless an obvious explanation is found.


Health Technology Assessment | 2013

The Percutaneous shunting in Lower Urinary Tract Obstruction (PLUTO) study and randomised controlled trial: evaluation of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of percutaneous vesicoamniotic shunting for lower urinary tract obstruction.

Rk Morris; Gl Malin; E Quinlan-Jones; Lee J Middleton; Lavanya Diwakar; Karla Hemming; Danielle L. Burke; Jane P Daniels; Elaine Denny; Pelham Barton; Tracy E Roberts; Khalid S. Khan; Jon Deeks; Kilby

BACKGROUND Congenital lower urinary tract obstruction (LUTO) is a disease associated with high perinatal mortality and childhood morbidity. Fetal vesicoamniotic shunting (VAS) bypasses the obstruction with the potential to improve outcome. OBJECTIVE To determine the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient acceptability of VAS for fetal LUTO. DESIGN A multicentre, randomised controlled trial incorporating a prospective registry, decision-analytic health economic model and preplanned Bayesian analysis using elicited opinions. Patient acceptability was evaluated by interview in a qualitative study. SETTING Fetal medicine departments in the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS Pregnant women with a male singleton fetus with LUTO. INTERVENTIONS In utero percutaneous VAS compared with conservative care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was survival to 28 days. Secondary outcome measures were survival and renal function at 1 year of age, cost of care and cost per additional life-year and per disability-free survival at the end of 1 year. RESULTS The trial stopped early with 31 women randomised because of difficulties in recruitment. Of those randomised to VAS and conservative management, 3/16 (19%) and 2/15 (13%), respectively, did not receive their allocated intervention. Based on intention-to-treat analysis, survival at 28 days was higher if allocated VAS (50%) than conservative management (27%) [relative risk (RR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 4.96, p = 0.27]. At 12 months survival was 44% in the VAS arm and 20% in the conservative arm (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.69 to 6.94, p = 0.25). Neither difference was statistically significant. Of survivors at 1 year, two in the VAS arm had no evidence of renal impairment and four in the VAS arm and two in the conservative arm required medical management. One baby in the conservative arm had end-stage renal failure at 1 year. VAS was more expensive because of additional surgery and intensive care. VAS cost £15,500 per survivor at 1 year and £43,900 per disability-free year. Elicited expert opinions showed uncertainty in the effect of VAS at 28 days. In a Bayesian analysis combining elicited opinion with the results, uncertainty of the benefit of VAS remained (RR 1.31, 95% credible interval 0.84 to 2.18). The acceptability study identified visualisation of the fetus during ultrasound scanning, perceiving a personal benefit, and altruism as positive influences on recruitment. Fear of the VAS procedure and the perceived severity of LUTO influenced non-participation. The need for more detailed information about the condition and its implications during pregnancy and following delivery was a further important finding of this research. Recruitment was hampered by logistical and regulatory difficulties, a lower incidence of LUTO and lower antenatal diagnosis rate [estimated to be 3.34 (95% CI 2.95 to 3.72) per 10,000 total births and 47%, respectively, in an associated epidemiological study] and high termination of pregnancy rates. In the registry women also demonstrated a clear preference for conservative management. CONCLUSIONS Survival to 28 days and 1 year appears to be higher with VAS than with conservative management, but it is not possible to prove benefit beyond reasonable doubt. Notably, prognosis in both arms for survival and renal function is poor. VAS was substantially more costly and unlikely to be regarded as cost-effective based on the 1-year data. Parents should be counselled about the risks of pregnancy loss with or without VAS insertion. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence interventional procedures guidance (IPG 202) should be updated to reflect this new evidence. Babies in the PLUTO trial should be followed up long term for the different outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN53328556. FUNDING This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 17, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology | 2015

Outcome in fetal lower urinary tract obstruction: a prospective registry study

Rk Morris; Lee J Middleton; Gl Malin; E Quinlan-Jones; Jane P Daniels; Khalid S. Khan; Jon Deeks; Mark D. Kilby

To describe influences on decision‐making and prognostic variables in the prenatal management of fetal lower urinary tract obstruction (LUTO).


British Journal of General Practice | 2017

Primary care REFerral for EchocaRdiogram (REFER) in heart failure: a diagnostic accuracy study

Clare Taylor; A K Roalfe; Rachel Iles; Fd Richard Hobbs; Pelham Barton; Martin R. Cowie; Russell C. Davis; Jon Deeks; Jonathan Mant; Deborah McCahon; Theresa McDonagh; George C. Sutton; Lynda Tait

Background Symptoms of breathlessness, fatigue, and ankle swelling are common in general practice but deciding which patients are likely to have heart failure is challenging. Aim To evaluate the performance of a clinical decision rule (CDR), with or without N-Terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) assay, for identifying heart failure. Design and setting Prospective, observational, diagnostic validation study of patients aged >55 years, presenting with shortness of breath, lethargy, or ankle oedema, from 28 general practices in England. Method The outcome was test performance of the CDR and natriuretic peptide test in determining a diagnosis of heart failure. The reference standard was an expert consensus panel of three cardiologists. Results Three hundred and four participants were recruited, with 104 (34.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 28.9 to 39.8) having a confirmed diagnosis of heart failure. The CDR+NT-proBNP had a sensitivity of 90.4% (95% CI = 83.0 to 95.3) and specificity 45.5% (95% CI = 38.5 to 52.7). NT-proBNP level alone with a cut-off <400 pg/ml had sensitivity 76.9% (95% CI = 67.6 to 84.6) and specificity 91.5% (95% CI = 86.7 to 95.0). At the lower cut-off of NT-proBNP <125 pg/ml, sensitivity was 94.2% (95% CI = 87.9 to 97.9) and specificity 49.0% (95% CI = 41.9 to 56.1). Conclusion At the low threshold of NT-proBNP <125 pg/ml, natriuretic peptide testing alone was better than a validated CDR+NT-proBNP in determining which patients presenting with symptoms went on to have a diagnosis of heart failure. The higher NT-proBNP threshold of 400 pg/ml may mean more than one in five patients with heart failure are not appropriately referred. Guideline natriuretic peptide thresholds may need to be revised.

Collaboration


Dive into the Jon Deeks's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

A King

University of Nottingham

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Aachal Kotecha

UCL Institute of Ophthalmology

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Andrew Elders

Glasgow Caledonian University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jennifer Burr

University of St Andrews

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge