-
Psychiatria Polska Dec 2017The aim of the systematic review was to evaluate the use of EEG Biofeedback/Neurofeedback in patients treated for mental disorders. The review covered publications... (Review)
Review
The aim of the systematic review was to evaluate the use of EEG Biofeedback/Neurofeedback in patients treated for mental disorders. The review covered publications analyzing influences and effects of therapy in patients receiving psychiatric treatment based on EEG Biofeedback/Neurofeedback. Selection of publications was made by searching PubMed and Scopus databases. 328 records concerning applications of the presented method were identified in total, including 84 records for patients diagnosed with mental disorders. The analysis of studies indicates that EEG Biofeedback/Neurofeedback is used for treatment of neurological, somatic and mental disorders. Its psychiatric applications for clinically diagnosed disorders include treatmentof depression, anorexia, dyslexia, dysgraphia, ADD, ADHD, schizophrenia, abuse of substances, neuroses, PTSD, and Alzheimer's disease. Research results imply that the neuromodulating effect of the therapy positively influences cognitive processes, mood, and anxiety levels. Positive effects of EEG Biofeedback confirm usefulness of this method as a main or auxiliary method in treatment of people with mental disorders. On the basis of conducted studies, it is worthwhile to consider inclusion of this method into the comprehensive neurorehabilitation activities.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Behavior, Addictive; Brain Injuries; Depressive Disorder; Electroencephalography; Electromyography; Female; Humans; Male; Mental Disorders; Neurofeedback; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 29432505
DOI: 10.12740/PP/68919 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Cervical cancer screening has traditionally been based on cervical cytology. Given the aetiological relationship between human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cervical cancer screening has traditionally been based on cervical cytology. Given the aetiological relationship between human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical carcinogenesis, HPV testing has been proposed as an alternative screening test.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of HPV testing for detecting histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) of grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+), including adenocarcinoma in situ, in women participating in primary cervical cancer screening; and how it compares to the accuracy of cytological testing (liquid-based and conventional) at various thresholds.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search of articles in MEDLINE and Embase (1992 to November 2015) containing quantitative data and handsearched the reference lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included comparative test accuracy studies if all women received both HPV testing and cervical cytology followed by verification of the disease status with the reference standard, if positive for at least one screening test. The studies had to include women participating in a cervical cancer screening programme who were not being followed up for previous cytological abnormalities.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We completed a 2 x 2 table with the number of true positives (TP), false positives (FP), true negatives (TN), and false negatives for each screening test (HPV test and cytology) used in each study. We calculated the absolute and relative sensitivities and the specificities of the tests for the detection of CIN 2+ and CIN 3+ at various thresholds and computed sensitivity (TP/(TP + TN) and specificity (TN/ (TN + FP) for each test separately. Relative sensitivity and specificity of one test compared to another test were defined as sensitivity of test-1 over sensitivity of test-2 and specificity of test-1 over specificity of test-2, respectively. To assess bias in the studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic test Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool. We used a bivariate random-effects model for computing pooled accuracy estimates. This model takes into account the within- and between-study variability and the intrinsic correlation between sensitivity and specificity.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 40 studies in the review, with more than 140,000 women aged between 20 and 70 years old. Many studies were at low risk of bias. There were a sufficient number of included studies with adequate methodology to perform the following test comparisons: hybrid capture 2 (HC2) (1 pg/mL threshold) versus conventional cytology (CC) (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS)+ and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL)+ thresholds) or liquid-based cytology (LBC) (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds), other high-risk HPV tests versus conventional cytology (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds) or LBC (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds). For CIN 2+, pooled sensitivity estimates for HC2, CC and LBC (ASCUS+) were 89.9%, 62.5% and 72.9%, respectively, and pooled specificity estimates were 89.9%, 96.6%, and 90.3%, respectively. The results did not differ by age of women (less than or greater than 30 years old), or in studies with verification bias. Accuracy of HC2 was, however, greater in European countries compared to other countries. The results for the sensitivity of the tests were heterogeneous ranging from 52% to 94% for LBC, and 61% to 100% for HC2. Overall, the quality of the evidence for the sensitivity of the tests was moderate, and high for the specificity.The relative sensitivity of HC2 versus CC for CIN 2+ was 1.52 (95% CI: 1.24 to 1.86) and the relative specificity 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.96), and versus LBC for CIN 2+ was 1.18 (95% CI: 1.10 to 1.26) and the relative specificity 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95 to 0.97). The relative sensitivity of HC2 versus CC for CIN 3+ was 1.46 (95% CI: 1.12 to 1.91) and the relative specificity 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93 to 0.97). The relative sensitivity of HC2 versus LBC for CIN 3+ was 1.17 (95% CI: 1.07 to 1.28) and the relative specificity 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95 to 0.97).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Whilst HPV tests are less likely to miss cases of CIN 2+ and CIN 3+, these tests do lead to more unnecessary referrals. However, a negative HPV test is more reassuring than a negative cytological test, as the cytological test has a greater chance of being falsely negative, which could lead to delays in receiving the appropriate treatment. Evidence from prospective longitudinal studies is needed to establish the relative clinical implications of these tests.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Papillomavirus Infections; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Precancerous Conditions; Sensitivity and Specificity; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vaginal Smears; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
PubMed: 28796882
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008587.pub2 -
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology Feb 2022Anti-synthetase syndrome (ASSD) is a heterogeneous autoimmune disease characterised by multi-system involvement with a wide variety of manifestations. Validated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Anti-synthetase syndrome (ASSD) is a heterogeneous autoimmune disease characterised by multi-system involvement with a wide variety of manifestations. Validated classification criteria are necessary to improve recognition and prevent misclassification, especially given the lack of reliable and standardised autoantibody testing. We systematically reviewed the literature to analyse proposed ASSD criteria, characteristics, and diagnostic performance.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and Embase databases (01/01/1984 to 06/11/2018) and the ACR and EULAR meeting abstracts (2017-2018). Sensitivities, specificities, positive, negative likelihood ratios and risk of bias were calculated for ASSD criteria and key variables reported in the literature. We performed meta-analysis when appropriate.
RESULTS
We retrieved 4,358 studies. We found 85 proposed ASSD criteria from a total of 82 studies. All but one study included anti-synthetase autoantibody (ARS) positivity in the ASSD criteria. Most studies required only one ASSD feature plus anti-ARS to define ASSD (n=64, 78%), whereas 16 studies required more than one ASSD variable plus anti-ARS. The only criteria not including anti-ARS positivity required 5 ASSD clinical features. We found limited data and wide variability in the diagnostic performance of each variable and definition proposed in the literature. Given these limitations we only meta-analysed the performance of individual muscle biopsy and clinical variables in diagnosing ASSD, which performed poorly.
CONCLUSIONS
The current ASSD criteria include a variety of serological, clinical, and histological features with wide variability amongst proposed definitions and the performance of these definitions has not been tested. This systematic literature review suggests the need for additional data and consensus-driven classification criteria for ASSD.
Topics: Autoantibodies; Humans; Ligases; Syndrome
PubMed: 35225224
DOI: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/8xj0b9 -
Allergy Feb 2023Food allergy (FA) is increasingly reported in Europe, however, the latest prevalence estimates were based on studies published a decade ago. The present work provides... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Food allergy (FA) is increasingly reported in Europe, however, the latest prevalence estimates were based on studies published a decade ago. The present work provides the most updated estimates of the prevalence and trends of FA in Europe. Databases were searched for studies published between 2012 and 2021, added to studies published up to 2012. In total, 110 studies were included in this update. Most studies were graded as moderate risk of bias. Pooled lifetime and point prevalence of self-reported FA were 19.9% (95% CI 16.6-23.3) and 13.1% (95% CI 11.3-14.8), respectively. The point prevalence of sensitization based on specific IgE (slgE) was 16.6% (95% CI 12.3-20.8), skin prick test (SPT) 5.7% (95% CI 3.9-7.4), and positive food challenge 0.8% (95% CI 0.5-0.9). While lifetime prevalence of self-reported FA and food challenge positivity only slightly changed, the point prevalence of self-reported FA, sIgE and SPT positivity increased from previous estimates. This may reflect a real increase, increased awareness, increased number of foods assessed, or increased number of studies from countries with less data in the first review. Future studies require rigorous designs and implementation of standardized methodology in diagnosing FA, including use of double-blinded placebo-controlled food challenge to minimize potential biases.
Topics: Humans; Immunoglobulin E; Food Hypersensitivity; Food; Skin Tests; Allergens; Europe
PubMed: 36271775
DOI: 10.1111/all.15560 -
JAMA Network Open Nov 2021COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial and ethnic minority groups, and race and ethnicity have been associated with disease severity. However, the association... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial and ethnic minority groups, and race and ethnicity have been associated with disease severity. However, the association of socioeconomic determinants with racial disparities in COVID-19 outcomes remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the association of race and ethnicity with COVID-19 outcomes and to examine the association between race, ethnicity, COVID-19 outcomes, and socioeconomic determinants.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search of PubMed, medRxiv, bioRxiv, Embase, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 databases was performed for studies published from January 1, 2020, to January 6, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies that reported data on associations between race and ethnicity and COVID-19 positivity, disease severity, and socioeconomic status were included and screened by 2 independent reviewers. Studies that did not have a satisfactory quality score were excluded. Overall, less than 1% (0.47%) of initially identified studies met selection criteria.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Associations were assessed using adjusted and unadjusted risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs), combined prevalence, and metaregression. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The main measures were RRs, ORs, and combined prevalence values.
RESULTS
A total of 4 318 929 patients from 68 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, 370 933 patients (8.6%) were African American, 9082 (0.2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 101 793 (2.4%) were Asian American, 851 392 identified as Hispanic/Latino (19.7%), 7417 (0.2%) were Pacific Islander, 1 037 996 (24.0%) were White, and 269 040 (6.2%) identified as multiracial and another race or ethnicity. In age- and sex-adjusted analyses, African American individuals (RR, 3.54; 95% CI, 1.38-9.07; P = .008) and Hispanic individuals (RR, 4.68; 95% CI, 1.28-17.20; P = .02) were the most likely to test positive for COVID-19. Asian American individuals had the highest risk of intensive care unit admission (RR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.60-2.34, P < .001). The area deprivation index was positively correlated with mortality rates in Asian American and Hispanic individuals (P < .001). Decreased access to clinical care was positively correlated with COVID-19 positivity in Hispanic individuals (P < .001) and African American individuals (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this study, members of racial and ethnic minority groups had higher risks of COVID-19 positivity and disease severity. Furthermore, socioeconomic determinants were strongly associated with COVID-19 outcomes in racial and ethnic minority populations.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Prevalence; Racial Groups; Social Class; United States
PubMed: 34762110
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.34147 -
Autoimmunity Reviews Oct 2021To identify and assess the magnitude of effect of pregnancy outcome predictors in women with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) by means of systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify and assess the magnitude of effect of pregnancy outcome predictors in women with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) by means of systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase were searched (13th June 2020) for studies reporting on pre-pregnancy risk factors of pregnancy outcomes in APS patients. Literature screening and data extraction were conducted by two reviewers independently, in a blinded standardized manner. Pooled univariate odds ratios (OR) were computed using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I%.
RESULTS
The search yielded 3013 unique results; 27 records were included in this meta-analysis. Previous thrombosis was associated with a decreased live birth risk (OR 0.60, p < 0.01, I = 40%), increased neonatal mortality (OR 15.19, p < 0.01, I = 0%), an increased risk of antenatal or postpartum thrombosis (OR 6.26, p < 0.01, I = 0%) and an increased risk of delivering a small for gestational age neonate (SGA) (OR 2.60, p = 0.01, I = 0%). Patients with an APS laboratory category I (double or triple positivity) profile had a decreased live birth risk (OR 0.66, p < 0.01, I = 0%), an increased risk of SGA (OR 1.86, p = 0.01, I = 43%) and preterm birth (OR 1.35, p < 0.01, I = 49%). Triple positivity was associated with a decreased live birth risk (OR 0.33, p < 0.01, I = 68%), an increased risk of preeclampsia (OR 2.43, p = 0.02, I = 35%) and SGA (OR 2.47, p = 0.04, I = 61%). Patients with lupus anticoagulant positivity had an increased risk of preeclampsia (OR 2.10, p = 0.02, I = 48%), SGA (OR 1.78, p < 0.01, I = 0%) and preterm birth (OR 3.56, p = 0.01, I = 48%). Risk of bias assessment suggested considerable bias on study participation and statistical methods.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this meta-analysis identified previous thrombosis, laboratory category I, triple positivity and lupus anticoagulant positivity as the most important predictors of adverse pregnancy outcomes. This up-to-date knowledge, can be used in preconception counseling and tailoring of obstetric care.
Topics: Antiphospholipid Syndrome; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth
PubMed: 34280554
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2021.102901 -
Health Education & Behavior : the... Apr 2018Cooking interventions are used in therapeutic and rehabilitative settings; however, little is known about the influence of these interventions on psychosocial outcomes....
OBJECTIVES
Cooking interventions are used in therapeutic and rehabilitative settings; however, little is known about the influence of these interventions on psychosocial outcomes. This systematic review examines the research evidence regarding the influence of cooking interventions on psychosocial outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature examined peer-reviewed research using Embase, PubMed, CINALH Plus, and PsychInfo with the following search terms: cooking, culinary, baking, food preparation, cookery, occupational therapy, mental health, mood, psychosocial, affect, confidence, self-confidence, self-esteem, socialization, and rehabilitation. Inclusion criteria were the following: adults, English, influence of cooking interventions on psychosocial outcomes. PRISMA guidelines were used.
RESULTS
The search yielded 377 articles; and 11 ultimately met inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Generally, the quality of the research was weak due to nonrandomization, unvalidated research tools, and small sample sizes. However, inpatient and community-based cooking interventions yielded positive influences on socialization, self-esteem, quality of life, and affect.
CONCLUSIONS
Finding benefits to cooking that extend beyond nutritional may be helpful in increasing motivation and frequency of cooking. This review suggests that cooking interventions may positively influence psychosocial outcomes, although this evidence is preliminary and limited. Further qualitative and rigorous quantitative research are needed to identify mechanisms by which cooking interventions may improve psychosocial outcomes.
Topics: Cooking; Humans; Occupational Therapy; Quality of Life; Self Concept
PubMed: 29121776
DOI: 10.1177/1090198117736352 -
Journal of Epidemiology and Community... Oct 2018It is commonly believed that nature has positive impacts on children's health, including physical, mental and social dimensions. This review focuses on how accessibility...
BACKGROUND
It is commonly believed that nature has positive impacts on children's health, including physical, mental and social dimensions. This review focuses on how accessibility to, exposure to and engagement with nature affects the mental health of children and teenagers.
METHODS
Ten academic databases were used to systematically search and identify primary research papers in English or French from 1990 to 1 March 2017. Papers were included for review based on their incorporation of nature, children and teenagers (0-18 years), quantitative results and focus on mental health.
RESULTS
Of the 35 papers included in the review, the majority focused on emotional well-being and attention deficit disorder/hyperactivity disorder. Other outcome measures included overall mental health, self-esteem, stress, resilience, depression and health-related quality of life. About half of all reported findings revealed statistically significant positive relationships between nature and mental health outcomes and almost half reported no statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings support the contention that nature positively influences mental health; however, in most cases, additional research with more rigorous study designs and objective measures of both nature and mental health outcomes are needed to confirm statistically significant relationships. Existing evidence is limited by the cross-sectional nature of most papers.
Topics: Adolescent; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Child, Preschool; Cross-Sectional Studies; Depression; Female; Humans; Male; Mental Health; Nature; Personal Satisfaction; Self Concept; Stress, Psychological
PubMed: 29950520
DOI: 10.1136/jech-2018-210436 -
Blood Advances Dec 2020The prognostic value of minimal residual disease (MRD) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated in a large cohort of patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The prognostic value of minimal residual disease (MRD) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated in a large cohort of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) using a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Medline and EMBASE databases were searched for articles published up to 8 June 2019, with no date limit on the indexed database. Clinical end points stratified by MRD status (positive or negative) were extracted, including hazard ratios (HRs) on PFS and OS, P values, and confidence intervals (CIs). HRs were estimated based on reconstructed patient-level data from published Kaplan-Meier curves. Forty-four eligible studies with PFS data from 8098 patients, and 23 studies with OS data from 4297 patients were identified to assess the association between MRD status and survival outcomes. Compared with MRD positivity, achieving MRD negativity improved PFS (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.29-0.37; P < .001) and OS (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.39-0.51; P < .001). MRD negativity was associated with significantly improved survival outcomes regardless of disease setting (newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory MM), MRD sensitivity thresholds, cytogenetic risk, method of MRD assessment, depth of clinical response at the time of MRD measurement, and MRD assessment premaintenance and 12 months after start of maintenance therapy. The strong prognostic value of MRD negativity and its association with favorable outcomes in various disease and treatment settings sets the stage to adopt MRD as a treatment end point, including development of therapeutic strategies. This large meta-analysis confirms the utility of MRD as a relevant surrogate for PFS and OS in MM.
Topics: Cytogenetics; Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Neoplasm, Residual; Prognosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33284948
DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002827 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Tuberculosis (TB) is the world's leading infectious cause of death. Extrapulmonary TB accounts for 15% of TB cases, but the proportion is increasing, and over half a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tuberculosis (TB) is the world's leading infectious cause of death. Extrapulmonary TB accounts for 15% of TB cases, but the proportion is increasing, and over half a million people were newly diagnosed with rifampicin-resistant TB in 2016. Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) is a World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended, rapid, automated, nucleic acid amplification assay that is used widely for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum specimens. This Cochrane Review assessed the accuracy of Xpert in extrapulmonary specimens.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert a) for extrapulmonary TB by site of disease in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB; and b) for rifampicin resistance in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry, and ProQuest up to 7 August 2017 without language restriction.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included diagnostic accuracy studies of Xpert in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB. We included TB meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, and disseminated TB. We used culture as the reference standard. For pleural TB, we also included a composite reference standard, which defined a positive result as the presence of granulomatous inflammation or a positive culture result. For rifampicin resistance, we used culture-based drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus as the reference standard.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool. We determined pooled predicted sensitivity and specificity for TB, grouped by type of extrapulmonary specimen, and for rifampicin resistance. For TB detection, we used a bivariate random-effects model. Recognizing that use of culture may lead to misclassification of cases of extrapulmonary TB as 'not TB' owing to the paucibacillary nature of the disease, we adjusted accuracy estimates by applying a latent class meta-analysis model. For rifampicin resistance detection, we performed univariate meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity separately to include studies in which no rifampicin resistance was detected. We used theoretical populations with an assumed prevalence to provide illustrative numbers of patients with false positive and false negative results.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 66 unique studies that evaluated 16,213 specimens for detection of extrapulmonary TB and rifampicin resistance. We identified only one study that evaluated the newest test version, Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra), for TB meningitis. Fifty studies (76%) took place in low- or middle-income countries. Risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains and was high or unclear for the reference standard domain (most of these studies decontaminated sterile specimens before culture inoculation). Regarding applicability, in the patient selection domain, we scored high or unclear concern for most studies because either patients were evaluated exclusively as inpatients at tertiary care centres, or we were not sure about the clinical settings.Pooled Xpert sensitivity (defined by culture) varied across different types of specimens (31% in pleural tissue to 97% in bone or joint fluid); Xpert sensitivity was > 80% in urine and bone or joint fluid and tissue. Pooled Xpert specificity (defined by culture) varied less than sensitivity (82% in bone or joint tissue to 99% in pleural fluid and urine). Xpert specificity was ≥ 98% in cerebrospinal fluid, pleural fluid, urine, and peritoneal fluid.Xpert testing in cerebrospinal fluidXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible interval (CrI)) against culture were 71.1% (60.9% to 80.4%) and 98.0% (97.0% to 98.8%), respectively (29 studies, 3774 specimens; moderate-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 100 have TB meningitis on culture, 89 would be Xpert-positive: of these, 18 (20%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 911 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have TB (false-negatives).For TB meningitis, ultra sensitivity and specificity against culture (95% confidence interval (CI)) were 90% (55% to 100%) and 90% (83% to 95%), respectively (one study, 129 participants).Xpert testing in pleural fluidXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 50.9% (39.7% to 62.8%) and 99.2% (98.2% to 99.7%), respectively (27 studies, 4006 specimens; low-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 150 have pleural TB on culture, 83 would be Xpert-positive: of these, seven (8%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 917 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 74 (8%) would have TB (false-negatives).Xpert testing in urineXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 82.7% (69.6% to 91.1%) and 98.7% (94.8% to 99.7%), respectively (13 studies, 1199 specimens; moderate-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 70 have genitourinary TB on culture, 70 would be Xpert-positive: of these, 12 (17%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 930 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 12 (1%) would have TB (false-negatives).Xpert testing for rifampicin resistanceXpert pooled sensitivity (20 studies, 148 specimens) and specificity (39 studies, 1088 specimens) were 95.0% (89.7% to 97.9%) and 98.7% (97.8% to 99.4%), respectively (high-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 120 have rifampicin-resistant TB, 125 would be positive for rifampicin-resistant TB: of these, 11 (9%) would not have rifampicin resistance (false-positives); and 875 would be negative for rifampicin-resistant TB: of these, 6 (1%) would have rifampicin resistance (false-negatives).For lymph node TB, the accuracy of culture, the reference standard used, presented a greater concern for bias than in other forms of extrapulmonary TB.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB, Xpert may be helpful in confirming the diagnosis. Xpert sensitivity varies across different extrapulmonary specimens, while for most specimens, specificity is high, the test rarely yielding a positive result for people without TB (defined by culture). Xpert is accurate for detection of rifampicin resistance. For people with presumed TB meningitis, treatment should be based on clinical judgement, and not withheld solely on an Xpert result, as is common practice when culture results are negative.
Topics: Antibiotics, Antitubercular; Bacterial Proteins; DNA-Directed RNA Polymerases; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; False Negative Reactions; False Positive Reactions; Humans; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Reagent Kits, Diagnostic; Reference Standards; Rifampin; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tuberculosis; Tuberculosis, Meningeal
PubMed: 30148542
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012768.pub2