-
International Journal of... 2021Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a global pandemic in March 2020. Since then, several studies have found COVID-19 patients with recurrent viral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Clinical features and corresponding immune function status of recurrent viral polymerase chain reaction positivity in patients with COVID-19 : A meta- analysis and systematic review.
INTRODUCTION
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a global pandemic in March 2020. Since then, several studies have found COVID-19 patients with recurrent viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity.
METHODS
On May 6, 2021, an exhaustive literature search of the Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, Embase, Wan Fang Data, VIP database, Sinomed database, BioRxiv, MedRxiv, and Research Square was conducted to find describing the laboratory indicators of recurrent and non-recurrent viral PCR positivity in patients with COVID-19. The data were statistically analyzed using STATA version 15.0.
RESULTS
In total, 22 studies-comprising 5154 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases-were included in the analyses. Patients with less severe COVID-19 illness (i.e. those clinically classified as mild or common-type) seemed to exhibit recurrent PCR positivity more commonly than patients with more severe illness (i.e. those classified as severe or critical). There were also significant differences between the two groups in terms of the rates of headaches and dizziness, in addition to the levels of aspartate aminotransferase, C reactive protein, interleukin-6, and lactate dehydrogenase. Further, there were variations in the ratio of CD4+ T cells/CD8+ T cells on admission to the hospital.
CONCLUSION
In comparison to COVID-19 patients with non-recurrent viral PCR positivity, patients with recurrent virus PCR positivity seem to experience more severe immune function suppression upon hospital admission.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Humans; Immunity, Cellular; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Recurrence
PubMed: 34162269
DOI: 10.1177/20587384211027679 -
Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 2020The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis assessing the diagnostic yield of computed tomography (CT) for the identification of coronavirus disease 2019... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Diagnostic Yield of Computed Tomography for the Identification of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Using Repeated Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction Testing or Confirmed True-Negative State as Reference Standard: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis assessing the diagnostic yield of computed tomography (CT) for the identification of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using repeated reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing or confirmed true-negative state as reference standard.
METHODS
In May 2020, we interrogated the MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios of CT for COVID-19 identification were computed. Cumulative positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value, stratified by disease prevalence, were calculated.
RESULTS
Ten articles were included (1332 patients). Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and summary diagnostic odds ratio of CT were 82% [95% confidence interval (CI), 79%-84%], 68% (95% CI, 65%-71%), and 18 (95% CI, 9.8-32.8). The PPV and negative predictive value were 54% (95% CI, 30%-77%) and 94% (95% CI, 88%-99%) at a COVID-19 prevalence lower than 40%, and 80% (95% CI, 62%-91%) and 77% (95% CI, 68%-85%) at a prevalence higher than 40%.
CONCLUSION
CT yields higher specificity and PPV, albeit lower sensitivity, than previously reported for the identification of COVID-19.
Topics: Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Clinical Laboratory Techniques; Coronavirus Infections; Humans; Lung; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Reference Values; Reproducibility of Results; Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction; SARS-CoV-2; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 33196593
DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000001105 -
International Journal of Infectious... Oct 2022The aim of this study was to evaluate the time in days between symptom onset and first positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) result... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to evaluate the time in days between symptom onset and first positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) result for COVID-19.
METHODS
This systematic review was conducted in the MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and Scopus databases using the following descriptors: "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "coronavirus", "RT-PCR", "real time PCR", and "diagnosis".
RESULTS
The included studies were conducted in 31 different countries and reported on a total of 6831 patients. The median age of the participants was 49.95 years. The three most common symptoms were fever, cough, and dyspnea, which affected 4012 (58.68%), 3192 (46.69%), and 2009 patients (29.38%), respectively. Among the 90 included studies, 13 were prospective cohorts, 15 were retrospective cohorts, 36 were case reports, 20 were case series, and six were cross-sectional studies. The overall mean time between symptom onset and positive test result was 6.72 days. Fourteen articles were analyzed separately for the temporal profile of RT-PCR test results; the best performance was on days 22-24, when 98% of test results were positive.
CONCLUSION
These findings corroborate the RT-PCR COVID-19 testing practices of some health units. In addition, the most frequently described symptoms of these patients can be considered the initial symptoms of infection and used in decision-making about RT-PCR testing.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Clinical Laboratory Techniques; Humans; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; RNA-Directed DNA Polymerase; Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction; Retrospective Studies; Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
PubMed: 35760382
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.06.037 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2014Accurate, rapid detection of tuberculosis (TB) and TB drug resistance is critical for improving patient care and decreasing TB transmission. Xpert® MTB/RIF assay is an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Accurate, rapid detection of tuberculosis (TB) and TB drug resistance is critical for improving patient care and decreasing TB transmission. Xpert® MTB/RIF assay is an automated test that can detect both TB and rifampicin resistance, generally within two hours after starting the test, with minimal hands-on technical time. The World Health Organization (WHO) issued initial recommendations on Xpert® MTB/RIF in early 2011. A Cochrane Review on the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for pulmonary TB and rifampicin resistance was published January 2013. We performed this updated Cochrane Review as part of a WHO process to develop updated guidelines on the use of the test.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for pulmonary TB (TB detection), where Xpert® MTB/RIF was used as both an initial test replacing microscopy and an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result.To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance detection, where Xpert® MTB/RIF was used as the initial test replacing culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST).The populations of interest were adults presumed to have pulmonary, rifampicin-resistant or multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB), with or without HIV infection. The settings of interest were intermediate- and peripheral-level laboratories. The latter may be associated with primary health care facilities.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for publications in any language up to 7 February 2013 in the following databases: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Knowledge; MEDION; LILACS; BIOSIS; and SCOPUS. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the search portal of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies using respiratory specimens that allowed for extraction of data evaluating Xpert® MTB/RIF against the reference standard. We excluded gastric fluid specimens. The reference standard for TB was culture and for rifampicin resistance was phenotypic culture-based DST.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For each study, two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form. When possible, we extracted data for subgroups by smear and HIV status. We assessed the quality of studies using QUADAS-2 and carried out meta-analyses to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert® MTB/RIF separately for TB detection and rifampicin resistance detection. For TB detection, we performed the majority of analyses using a bivariate random-effects model and compared the sensitivity of Xpert® MTB/RIF and smear microscopy against culture as reference standard. For rifampicin resistance detection, we undertook univariate meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity separately to include studies in which no rifampicin resistance was detected.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 unique studies (integrating nine new studies) involving 9557 participants. Sixteen studies (59%) were performed in low- or middle-income countries. For all QUADAS-2 domains, most studies were at low risk of bias and low concern regarding applicability.As an initial test replacing smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 89% [95% Credible Interval (CrI) 85% to 92%] and pooled specificity 99% (95% CrI 98% to 99%), (22 studies, 8998 participants: 2953 confirmed TB, 6045 non-TB).As an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result, Xpert®MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 67% (95% CrI 60% to 74%) and pooled specificity 99% (95% CrI 98% to 99%; 21 studies, 6950 participants).For smear-positive, culture-positive TB, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%; 21 studies, 1936 participants).For people with HIV infection, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 79% (95% CrI 70% to 86%; 7 studies, 1789 participants), and for people without HIV infection, it was 86% (95% CrI 76% to 92%; 7 studies, 1470 participants). Comparison with smear microscopy In comparison with smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF increased TB detection among culture-confirmed cases by 23% (95% CrI 15% to 32%; 21 studies, 8880 participants).For TB detection, if pooled sensitivity estimates for Xpert® MTB/RIF and smear microscopy are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients where 10% of those with symptoms have TB, Xpert® MTB/RIF will diagnose 88 cases and miss 12 cases, whereas sputum microscopy will diagnose 65 cases and miss 35 cases. Rifampicin resistance For rifampicin resistance detection, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 95% (95% CrI 90% to 97%; 17 studies, 555 rifampicin resistance positives) and pooled specificity was 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%; 24 studies, 2411 rifampicin resistance negatives). Among 180 specimens with nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM), Xpert® MTB/RIF was positive in only one specimen that grew NTM (14 studies, 2626 participants).For rifampicin resistance detection, if the pooled accuracy estimates for Xpert® MTB/RIF are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals where 15% of those with symptoms are rifampicin resistant, Xpert® MTB/RIF would correctly identify 143 individuals as rifampicin resistant and miss eight cases, and correctly identify 833 individuals as rifampicin susceptible and misclassify 17 individuals as resistant. Where 5% of those with symptoms are rifampicin resistant, Xpert® MTB/RIF would correctly identify 48 individuals as rifampicin resistant and miss three cases and correctly identify 931 individuals as rifampicin susceptible and misclassify 19 individuals as resistant.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In adults thought to have TB, with or without HIV infection, Xpert® MTB/RIF is sensitive and specific. Compared with smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF substantially increases TB detection among culture-confirmed cases. Xpert® MTB/RIF has higher sensitivity for TB detection in smear-positive than smear-negative patients. Nonetheless, this test may be valuable as an add-on test following smear microscopy in patients previously found to be smear-negative. For rifampicin resistance detection, Xpert® MTB/RIF provides accurate results and can allow rapid initiation of MDR-TB treatment, pending results from conventional culture and DST. The tests are expensive, so current research evaluating the use of Xpert® MTB/RIF in TB programmes in high TB burden settings will help evaluate how this investment may help start treatment promptly and improve outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Antibiotics, Antitubercular; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Rifampin; Sensitivity and Specificity; Sequence Analysis, DNA; Tuberculosis, Pulmonary
PubMed: 24448973
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009593.pub3 -
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease Oct 2018Leprosy is an infectious disease caused by and mainly affects skin, peripheral nerves, and eyes. Suitable tools for providing bacteriological evidence of leprosy are... (Review)
Review
Leprosy is an infectious disease caused by and mainly affects skin, peripheral nerves, and eyes. Suitable tools for providing bacteriological evidence of leprosy are needed for early case detection and appropriate therapeutic management. Ideally these tools are applicable at all health care levels for the effective control of leprosy. This paper presents a systematic review analysis in order to investigate the performance of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) vis-à-vis slit skin smears (SSS) in various clinical settings and its potential usefulness as a routine lab test for leprosy diagnosis. Records of published journal articles were identified through PubMed database search. Twenty-seven articles were included for the analysis. The evidence from this review analysis suggests that PCR on skin biopsy is the ideal diagnostic test. Nevertheless, PCR on SSS samples also seems to be useful with its practical value for application, even at primary care levels. The review findings also indicated the necessity for improving the sensitivity of PCR and further research on specificity in ruling out other clinical conditions that may mimic leprosy. The -specific repetitive element (RLEP) was the most frequently-used marker although its variable performance across the clinical sites and samples are a matter of concern. Undertaking further research studies with large sample numbers and uniform protocols studied simultaneously across multiple clinical sites is recommended to address these issues.
PubMed: 30275432
DOI: 10.3390/tropicalmed3040107 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is the most common life-threatening opportunistic invasive mould infection in immunocompromised people. Early diagnosis of IA and prompt... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is the most common life-threatening opportunistic invasive mould infection in immunocompromised people. Early diagnosis of IA and prompt administration of appropriate antifungal treatment are critical to the survival of people with IA. Antifungal drugs can be given as prophylaxis or empirical therapy, instigated on the basis of a diagnostic strategy (the pre-emptive approach) or for treating established disease. Consequently there is an urgent need for research into both new diagnostic tools and drug treatment strategies. Newer methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect fungal nucleic acids are increasingly being investigated.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overall summary of the diagnostic accuracy of PCR-based tests on blood specimens for the diagnosis of IA in immunocompromised people.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE (1946 to June 2015) and EMBASE (1980 to June 2015). We also searched LILACS, DARE, Health Technology Assessment, Web of Science and Scopus to June 2015. We checked the reference lists of all the studies identified by the above methods and contacted relevant authors and researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that: i) compared the results of blood PCR tests with the reference standard published by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG); ii) reported data on false-positive, true-positive, false-negative and true-negative results of the diagnostic tests under investigation separately; and iii) evaluated the test(s) prospectively in cohorts of people from a relevant clinical population, defined as a group of individuals at high risk for invasive aspergillosis. Case-control studies were excluded from the analysis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. For PCR assays, we evaluated the requirement for either one or two consecutive samples to be positive for diagnostic accuracy. We investigated heterogeneity by subgroup analyses. We plotted estimates of sensitivity and specificity from each study in receiver operating characteristics (ROC) space and constructed forest plots for visual examination of variation in test accuracy. We performed meta-analyses using the bivariate model to produce summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity.
MAIN RESULTS
Eighteen primary studies, corresponding to 19 cohorts and 22 data sets, published between 2000 and 2013 were included in the meta-analyses, with a median prevalence of IA (proven or probable) of 12.0% (range 2.5 to 30.8 %). The majority of people had received chemotherapy for a haematological malignancy or had undergone a hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Several PCR techniques were used among the included studies. The sensitivity and specificity of PCR for the diagnosis of IA varied according to the interpretative criteria used to define a test as positive. The mean sensitivity and specificity were 80.5% (95% CI; 73.0 to 86.3) and 78.5% (67.8 to 86.4) for a single positive test result, and 58.0% (36.5 to 76.8) and 96.2% (89.6 to 98.6) for two consecutive positive test results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
PCR shows moderate diagnostic accuracy when used as screening tests for IA in high-risk patient groups. Importantly the sensitivity of the test confers a high negative predictive value (NPV) such that a negative test allows the diagnosis to be excluded. Consecutive positives show good specificity in diagnosis of IA and could be used to trigger radiological and other investigations or for pre-emptive therapy in the absence of specific radiological signs when the clinical suspicion of infection is high. When a single PCR positive test is used as diagnostic criterion for IA in a population of 100 people with a disease prevalence of 13.0% (overall mean prevalence), three people with IA would be missed (sensitivity 80.5%, 19.5% false negatives), and 19 people would be unnecessarily treated or referred for further tests (specificity of 78.5%, 21.5% false negatives). If we use the two positive test requirement in a population with the same disease prevalence, it would mean that six IA people would be missed (sensitivity 58.0%, 42.1% false negatives) and three people would be unnecessarily treated or referred for further tests (specificity of 96.2%, 3.8% false negatives). Galactamannan and PCR have good NPV for excluding disease but the low prevalence of disease limits the ability to rule in a diagnosis. The biomarkers are detecting different aspects of disease and the combination of both together is likely to be more useful.
Topics: Aspergillosis; Cohort Studies; Data Accuracy; False Negative Reactions; False Positive Reactions; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Predictive Value of Tests; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 26343815
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009551.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is the most common life-threatening opportunistic invasive mould infection in immunocompromised people. Early diagnosis of IA and prompt... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is the most common life-threatening opportunistic invasive mould infection in immunocompromised people. Early diagnosis of IA and prompt administration of appropriate antifungal treatment are critical to the survival of people with IA. Antifungal drugs can be given as prophylaxis or empirical therapy, instigated on the basis of a diagnostic strategy (the pre-emptive approach) or for treating established disease. Consequently there is an urgent need for research into both new diagnostic tools and drug treatment strategies. Newer methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect fungal nucleic acids are increasingly being investigated.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overall summary of the diagnostic accuracy of PCR-based tests on blood specimens for the diagnosis of IA in immunocompromised people.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE (1946 to June 2015) and EMBASE (1980 to June 2015). We also searched LILACS, DARE, Health Technology Assessment, Web of Science and Scopus to June 2015. We checked the reference lists of all the studies identified by the above methods and contacted relevant authors and researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that: i) compared the results of blood PCR tests with the reference standard published by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG); ii) reported data on false-positive, true-positive, false-negative and true-negative results of the diagnostic tests under investigation separately; and iii) evaluated the test(s) prospectively in cohorts of people from a relevant clinical population, defined as a group of individuals at high risk for invasive aspergillosis. Case-control studies were excluded from the analysis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. For PCR assays, we evaluated the requirement for either one or two consecutive samples to be positive for diagnostic accuracy. We investigated heterogeneity by subgroup analyses. We plotted estimates of sensitivity and specificity from each study in receiver operating characteristics (ROC) space and constructed forest plots for visual examination of variation in test accuracy. We performed meta-analyses using the bivariate model to produce summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity.
MAIN RESULTS
Eighteen primary studies, corresponding to 19 cohorts and 22 data sets, published between 2000 and 2013 were included in the meta-analyses, with a median prevalence of IA (proven or probable) of 12.0% (range 2.5 to 30.8 %). The majority of people had received chemotherapy for a haematological malignancy or had undergone a hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Several PCR techniques were used among the included studies. The sensitivity and specificity of PCR for the diagnosis of IA varied according to the interpretative criteria used to define a test as positive. The mean sensitivity and specificity were 80.5% (95% CI; 73.0 to 86.3) and 78.5% (67.8 to 86.4) for a single positive test result, and 58.0% (36.5 to 76.8) and 96.2% (89.6 to 98.6) for two consecutive positive test results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
PCR shows moderate diagnostic accuracy when used as screening tests for IA in high-risk patient groups. Importantly the sensitivity of the test confers a high negative predictive value (NPV) such that a negative test allows the diagnosis to be excluded. Consecutive positives show good specificity in diagnosis of IA and could be used to trigger radiological and other investigations or for pre-emptive therapy in the absence of specific radiological signs when the clinical suspicion of infection is high. When a single PCR positive test is used as diagnostic criterion for IA in a population of 100 people with a disease prevalence of 13.0% (overall mean prevalence), three people with IA would be missed (sensitivity 80.5%, 19.5% false negatives), and 19 people would be unnecessarily treated or referred for further tests (specificity of 78.5%, 21.5% false positives). If we use the two positive test requirement in a population with the same disease prevalence, it would mean that six IA people would be missed (sensitivity 58.0%, 42.1% false negatives) and three people would be unnecessarily treated or referred for further tests (specificity of 96.2%, 3.8% false positives). Galactomannan and PCR have good NPV for excluding disease but the low prevalence of disease limits the ability to rule in a diagnosis. The biomarkers are detecting different aspects of disease and the combination of both together is likely to be more useful.
Topics: Aspergillosis; Cohort Studies; Data Accuracy; False Negative Reactions; False Positive Reactions; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Opportunistic Infections; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Predictive Value of Tests; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 26424726
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009551.pub3 -
Revista Da Associacao Medica Brasileira... Jul 2020
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Clinical Laboratory Techniques; Coronavirus; Coronavirus Infections; Humans; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction; SARS-CoV-2; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 32844930
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.66.7.880 -
Annals of Emergency Medicine Nov 2012We aim to evaluate the accuracy of the broad-range 16S polymerase chain reaction test in the diagnosis of bacterial meningitis through a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
We aim to evaluate the accuracy of the broad-range 16S polymerase chain reaction test in the diagnosis of bacterial meningitis through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, using the Medical Subject Headings terms "polymerase chain reaction," "RNA, ribosomal, 16S," and "bacterial meningitis." For our primary analysis, we examined the 16S polymerase chain reaction in culture-proven bacterial meningitis. In ancillary observations, we included studies of culture-negative presumed bacterial meningitis, in which there was high clinical suspicion for bacterial meningitis despite negative cerebrospinal fluid culture results. We extracted information necessary to calculate sensitivity and specificity and used bivariate hierarchic modeling meta-analysis methods to obtain pooled statistics. We also estimated potential sources of error and bias such as between-study heterogeneity and publication bias.
RESULTS
Fourteen of 299 studies met inclusion criteria for culture-proven bacterial meningitis; 448 (16.1%) of 2,780 subjects had positive cerebrospinal fluid culture results. Pooled analysis demonstrated a sensitivity of 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75% to 98%), specificity of 94% (95% CI 90% to 97%), positive likelihood ratio of 16.26 (95% CI 9.07 to 29.14), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.09 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.28) for culture-proven bacterial meningitis. The polymerase chain reaction test result was also positive in 30% of cases of culture-negative presumed bacterial meningitis. There was significant heterogeneity between studies.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis supports the role of 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid polymerase chain reaction as a diagnostic tool in bacterial meningitis. With further refinements in technology, the polymerase chain reaction test has the potential to become a useful adjunct in the diagnosis of bacterial meningitis in the emergency department.
Topics: Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Meningitis, Bacterial; Polymerase Chain Reaction; RNA, Bacterial; RNA, Ribosomal, 16S; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 22883680
DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.05.040 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019This is an update of the original review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 10, 2015.Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is the most common... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the original review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 10, 2015.Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is the most common life-threatening opportunistic invasive mould infection in immunocompromised people. Early diagnosis of IA and prompt administration of appropriate antifungal treatment are critical to the survival of people with IA. Antifungal drugs can be given as prophylaxis or empirical therapy, instigated on the basis of a diagnostic strategy (the pre-emptive approach) or for treating established disease. Consequently, there is an urgent need for research into both new diagnostic tools and drug treatment strategies. Increasingly, newer methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect fungal nucleic acids are being investigated.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overall summary of the diagnostic accuracy of PCR-based tests on blood specimens for the diagnosis of IA in immunocompromised people.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE (1946 to June 2015) and Embase (1980 to June 2015). We also searched LILACS, DARE, Health Technology Assessment, Web of Science and Scopus to June 2015. We checked the reference lists of all the studies identified by the above methods and contacted relevant authors and researchers in the field. For this review update we updated electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid (June 2015 to March week 2 2018); and Embase via Ovid (June 2015 to 2018 week 12).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that: i) compared the results of blood PCR tests with the reference standard published by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG); ii) reported data on false-positive, true-positive, false-negative and true-negative results of the diagnostic tests under investigation separately; and iii) evaluated the test(s) prospectively in cohorts of people from a relevant clinical population, defined as a group of individuals at high risk for invasive aspergillosis. Case-control and retrospective studies were excluded from the analysis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. For PCR assays, we evaluated the requirement for either one or two consecutive samples to be positive for diagnostic accuracy. We investigated heterogeneity by subgroup analyses. We plotted estimates of sensitivity and specificity from each study in receiver operating characteristics (ROC) space and constructed forest plots for visual examination of variation in test accuracy. We performed meta-analyses using the bivariate model to produce summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 29 primary studies (18 from the original review and 11 from this update), corresponding to 34 data sets, published between 2000 and 2018 in the meta-analyses, with a mean prevalence of proven or probable IA of 16.3 (median prevalence 11.1% , range 2.5% to 57.1%). Most patients had received chemotherapy for haematological malignancy or had undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Several PCR techniques were used among the included studies. The sensitivity and specificity of PCR for the diagnosis of IA varied according to the interpretative criteria used to define a test as positive. The summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 79.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71.0 to 85.5) and 79.6% (95% CI 69.9 to 86.6) for a single positive test result, and 59.6% (95% CI 40.7 to 76.0) and 95.1% (95% CI 87.0 to 98.2) for two consecutive positive test results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
PCR shows moderate diagnostic accuracy when used as screening tests for IA in high-risk patient groups. Importantly the sensitivity of the test confers a high negative predictive value (NPV) such that a negative test allows the diagnosis to be excluded. Consecutive positives show good specificity in diagnosis of IA and could be used to trigger radiological and other investigations or for pre-emptive therapy in the absence of specific radiological signs when the clinical suspicion of infection is high. When a single PCR positive test is used as the diagnostic criterion for IA in a population of 100 people with a disease prevalence of 16.3% (overall mean prevalence), three people with IA would be missed (sensitivity 79.2%, 20.8% false negatives), and 17 people would be unnecessarily treated or referred for further tests (specificity of 79.6%, 21.4% false positives). If we use the two positive test requirement in a population with the same disease prevalence, it would mean that nine IA people would be missed (sensitivity 59.6%, 40.4% false negatives) and four people would be unnecessarily treated or referred for further tests (specificity of 95.1%, 4.9% false positives). Like galactomannan, PCR has good NPV for excluding disease, but the low prevalence of disease limits the ability to rule in a diagnosis. As these biomarkers detect different markers of disease, combining them is likely to prove more useful.
Topics: Aspergillosis; Case-Control Studies; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Opportunistic Infections; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Predictive Value of Tests; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 31478559
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009551.pub4