Diagnostic accuracy of Aspergillus ‐specific antibodies for chronic pulmonary aspergillosis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Mycoses ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keisuke Anan ◽  
Yuki Kataoka ◽  
Shinji Okabayashi ◽  
Ryohei Yamamoto ◽  
Ho Namkoong ◽  
...  
Mycoses ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (9) ◽  
pp. 921-927 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Bongomin ◽  
Lucy Grace Asio ◽  
Ronald Olum ◽  
David W. Denning

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (10) ◽  
pp. e0240374
Author(s):  
Ronald Olum ◽  
Joseph Baruch Baluku ◽  
Andrew Kazibwe ◽  
Laura Russell ◽  
Felix Bongomin

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cláudia Elizabeth Volpe Chaves ◽  
Sandra Maria do Valle Leone de Oliveira ◽  
James Venturini ◽  
Antonio Jose Grande ◽  
Tatiane Fernanda Sylvestre ◽  
...  

AbstractChronic pulmonary aspergillosis (CPA) is a disease that benefits from cavities as after-effects of tuberculosis, presenting a high mortality rate. Serological tests like double agar gel immunodiffusion test (DID) or the counterimmunoelectrophoresis (CIE) test have been routinely used for CPA diagnosis in the absence of positive cultures; however, they have been replaced by enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA), with a variety of methods.This systematic review aims to compare the accuracy of the ELISA test with the reference test (DID and/or CIE) in CPA diagnosis. It was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA).The study was registered in PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42016046057. We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Elsevier), LILACS (VHL), Cochrane library, and ISI Web of Science. Gray literature was researched in Google Scholars and conference abstracts. We included articles with patients or serum samples from CPA patients who underwent two serological tests: ELISA (index test) and IDD and/or CIE (reference test), using the accuracy of the tests as a result. Original articles were considered without a restriction of date or language. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were estimated.We included 13 studies in the review, but only four studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivities and specificities were 0.93 and 0.97 for the ELISA test. For the reference test (DID and/or CIE), these values were 0.64 and 0.99. Analyses of summary receiver operating characteristic curves yielded 0.99 for ELISA and 0.99 for the reference test (DID and/or CIE). Our meta-analysis suggests that the diagnostic accuracy of ELISA is greater than that of the reference tests (DID and/or CIE) in early detection of CPA.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. e0222738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cláudia Elizabeth Volpe Chaves ◽  
Sandra Maria do Valle Leone de Oliveira ◽  
James Venturini ◽  
Antonio Jose Grande ◽  
Tatiane Fernanda Sylvestre ◽  
...  

Mycoses ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inderpaul Singh Sehgal ◽  
Sahajal Dhooria ◽  
Kuruswamy Thurai Prasad ◽  
Valliappan Muthu ◽  
Ashutosh Nath Aggarwal ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e038449
Author(s):  
Lisa Helen Telford ◽  
Leila Hussein Abdullahi ◽  
Eleanor Atieno Ochodo ◽  
Liesl Joanna Zuhlke ◽  
Mark Emmanuel Engel

ObjectiveTo summarise the accuracy of handheld echocardiography (HAND) which, if shown to be sufficiently similar to that of standard echocardiography (STAND), could usher in a new age of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) screening in endemic areas.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus, EBSCOHost and ISI Web of Science were initially searched on 27 September 2017 and again on 3 March 2020 for studies published from 2012 onwards.Eligibility criteriaStudies assessing the accuracy of HAND compared with STAND when performed by an experienced cardiologist in conjunction with the 2012 World Heart Federation criteria among populations of children and adolescents living in endemic areas were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies against review-specific Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 criteria. A meta-analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model was conducted to produce summary results of sensitivity and specificity. Forest plots and scatter plots in receiver operating characteristic space in combination with subgroup analyses were used to investigate heterogeneity. Publication bias was not investigated.ResultsSix studies (N=4208) were included in the analysis. For any RHD detection, the pooled results from six studies were as follows: sensitivity: 81.56% (95% CI 76.52% to 86.61%) and specificity: 89.75% (84.48% to 95.01%). Meta-analytical results from five of the six included studies were as follows: sensitivity: 91.06% (80.46% to 100%) and specificity: 91.96% (85.57% to 98.36%) for the detection of definite RHD only and sensitivity: 62.01% (31.80% to 92.22%) and specificity: 82.33% (65.15% to 99.52%) for the detection of borderline RHD only.ConclusionsHAND displayed good accuracy for detecting definite RHD only and modest accuracy for detecting any RHD but demonstrated poor accuracy for the detection of borderline RHD alone. Findings from this review provide some evidence for the potential of HAND to increase access to echocardiographic screening for RHD in resource-limited and remote settings; however, further research into feasibility and cost-effectiveness of wide-scale screening is still needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016051261.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document