scholarly journals Accuracy of malaria diagnostic tests performed on non-invasively collected samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. e005634
Author(s):  
Celestin Danwang ◽  
Jean Jacques Noubiap ◽  
Jacob Souopgui ◽  
Jean Gaudart ◽  
Jean Cyr Yombi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Malaria Diagnosis ◽  
Substantial Improvement ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Overall Performance ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

BackgroundDuring the last decade, many studies have assessed the performance of malaria tests on non-invasively collected specimens, but no systematic review has hitherto estimated the overall performance of these tests. We report here the first meta-analysis estimating the diagnostic performance of malaria diagnostic tests performed on saliva, urine, faeces, skin odour (‘sniff and tell’) and hair, using either microscopy or PCR on blood sample as reference test.MethodsWe searched on PubMed, EMBASE, African Journals Online and Cochrane Infectious Diseases from inception until 19 January 2021 for relevant primary studies. A random effects model was used to estimate the overall performance of various diagnostic methods on different types of specimen.ResultsEighteen studies providing 30 data sets were included in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic OR (DOR) of PCR were 84.5% (95% CI 79.3% to 88.6%), 97.3% (95% CI 95.3% to 98.5%) and 184.9 (95% CI 95.8 to 356.9) in saliva, respectively; 57.4% (95% CI 41.4% to 72.1%), 98.6% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.3%) and 47.2 (95% CI 22.1 to 101.1) in urine, respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity and DOR of rapid diagnostic test for malaria in urine was 59.8% (95% CI 40.0% to 76.9%), 96.9% (95% CI 91.0% to 99.0%) and 30.8 (95% CI:23.5 to 40.4).ConclusionIn settings where PCR is available, saliva and urine samples should be considered for PCR-based malaria diagnosis only if blood samples cannot be collected. The performance of rapid diagnostic testing in the urine is limited, especially its sensitivity. Malaria testing on non-invasively collected specimen still needs substantial improvement.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for Tuberculous Meningitis

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Pormohammad ◽  
Mohammad Javad Nasiri ◽  
Timothy D. McHugh ◽  
Seyed Mohammad Riahi ◽  
Nathan C. Bahr
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Nucleic Acid ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Tuberculous Meningitis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

ABSTRACTThe diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis (TBM) is difficult and poses a significant challenge to physicians worldwide. Recently, nucleic acid amplification (NAA) tests have shown promise for the diagnosis of TBM, although their performance has been variable. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of NAA tests with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples against that of culture as the reference standard or a combined reference standard (CRS) for TBM. We searched the Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for the relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Diagnostic accuracy measures (i.e., sensitivity and specificity) were pooled with a random-effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with STATA (version 14 IC; Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA), Meta-DiSc (version 1.4 for Windows; Cochrane Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain), and RevMan (version 5.3; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, the Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) software. Sixty-three studies comprising 1,381 cases of confirmed TBM and 5,712 non-TBM controls were included in the final analysis. These 63 studies were divided into two groups comprising 71 data sets (43 in-house tests and 28 commercial tests) that used culture as the reference standard and 24 data sets (21 in-house tests and 3 commercial tests) that used a CRS. Studies which used a culture reference standard had better pooled summary estimates than studies which used CRS. The overall pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of the NAA tests against culture were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75 to 87%), 99% (95% CI, 98 to 99%), 58.6 (95% CI, 35.3 to 97.3), and 0.19 (95% CI, 0.14 to 0.25), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, and NLR of NAA tests against CRS were 68% (95% CI, 41 to 87%), 98% (95% CI, 95 to 99%), 36.5 (95% CI, 15.6 to 85.3), and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.70), respectively. The analysis has demonstrated that the diagnostic accuracy of NAA tests is currently insufficient for them to replace culture as a lone diagnostic test. NAA tests may be used in combination with culture due to the advantage of time to result and in scenarios where culture tests are not feasible. Further work to improve NAA tests would benefit from the availability of standardized reference standards and improvements to the methodology.

scholarly journals Point-of-Care Diagnostic Tests for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Real-World Data

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 1515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Riccò ◽  
Pietro Ferraro ◽  
Giovanni Gualerzi ◽  
Silvia Ranzieri ◽  
Brandon Michael Henry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Rapid Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Healthcare Facilities

SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for a highly contagious infection, known as COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 was discovered in late December 2019 and, since then, has become a global pandemic. Timely and accurate COVID-19 laboratory testing is an essential step in the management of the COVID-19 outbreak. To date, assays based on the reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in respiratory samples are the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis. Unfortunately, RT-PCR has several practical limitations. Consequently, alternative diagnostic methods are urgently required, both for alleviating the pressure on laboratories and healthcare facilities and for expanding testing capacity to enable large-scale screening and ensure a timely therapeutic intervention. To date, few studies have been conducted concerning the potential utilization of rapid testing for COVID-19, with some conflicting results. Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to explore the feasibility of rapid diagnostic tests in the management of the COVID-19 outbreak. Based on ten studies, we computed a pooled sensitivity of 64.8% (95%CI 54.5–74.0), and specificity of 98.0% (95%CI 95.8–99.0), with high heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias. We can conclude that: (1) rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 are necessary, but should be adequately sensitive and specific; (2) few studies have been carried out to date; (3) the studies included are characterized by low numbers and low sample power, and (4) in light of these results, the use of available tests is currently questionable for clinical purposes and cannot substitute other more reliable molecular tests, such as assays based on RT-PCR.

scholarly journals Field Performances of Rapid Diagnostic Tests Detecting Human Plasmodium Species: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in India, 1990–2020

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 590
Author(s):  
Loick Pradel Kojom Foko ◽  
Veena Pande ◽  
Vineeta Singh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Plasmodium Species ◽  
Negative Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Malaria Diagnosis ◽  
Performance Outcomes ◽  
Rapid Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Malaria Rdts

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have become a mainstay of malaria diagnosis in endemic countries since their implementation in the 1990s. We conducted a 30-year systematic review and meta-analysis on malaria RDTs performance in India. Outcomes of interest were sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive/negative likelihood ratio (PLR/NLR), and diagnostic odd ratio (DOR). Among the 75 studies included, most of the studies were cross-sectional (65.3%), hospital-based (77.3%), and targeted febrile patients (90.6%). Nearly half of RDTs were designed for detecting Plasmodium falciparum only (47.5%) while the rest were for P. falciparum and P. vivax (11.9%), and P. falciparum/Pan-Plasmodium except for P. knowlesi (32.3%). When compared to light microscopy (gold standard), pooled estimates of performances were: Se = 97.0%, Sp = 96.0%, PLR = 22.4, NLR = 0.02 and DOR = 1080. In comparison to polymerase chain reaction, the RDTs showed Se = 89.0% and Sp = 99.0%. Performance outcomes (Se and Sp) were similar for RDT targeting P. falciparum only, but decreased for mixed and non-falciparum infections. Performances of malaria RDTs are still high India. However, there is a need for developing RDTs with regard to targeting minor malarial species, individuals carrying only mature gametocytes, and pfhrp2-deleted parasites.

scholarly journals Application of artificial intelligence in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and liver fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175628482110628
Author(s):  
Pakanat Decharatanachart ◽  
Roongruedee Chaiteerakij ◽  
Thodsawit Tiyarattanachai ◽  
Sombat Treeprasertsuk
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Liver Fibrosis ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Fatty Liver Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Alcoholic Fatty Liver ◽  
Performance Improvements ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

Background: The global prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) continues to rise. Non-invasive diagnostic modalities including ultrasonography and clinical scoring systems have been proposed as alternatives to liver biopsy but with limited performance. Artificial intelligence (AI) is currently being integrated with conventional diagnostic methods in the hopes of performance improvements. We aimed to estimate the performance of AI-assisted systems for diagnosing NAFLD, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and liver fibrosis. Methods: A systematic review was performed to identify studies integrating AI in the diagnosis of NAFLD, NASH, and liver fibrosis. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated. Results: Twenty-five studies were included in the systematic review. Meta-analysis of 13 studies showed that AI significantly improved the diagnosis of NAFLD, NASH and liver fibrosis. AI-assisted ultrasonography had excellent performance for diagnosing NAFLD, with a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV of 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91–0.99), 0.98 (95% CI: 0.89–1.00), 0.98 (95% CI: 0.93–1.00), and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.88–0.98), respectively. The performance of AI-assisted ultrasonography was better than AI-assisted clinical data sets for the identification of NAFLD, which provided a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.66–0.82), 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74–0.88), 0.75 (95% CI: 0.60–0.86), and 0.82 (0.74–0.87), respectively. The area under the curves were 0.98 and 0.85 for AI-assisted ultrasonography and AI-assisted clinical data sets, respectively. AI-integrated clinical data sets had a pooled sensitivity, specificity of 0.80 (95%CI: 0.75–0.85), 0.69 (95%CI: 0.53–0.82) for identifying NASH, as well as 0.99–1.00 and 0.76–1.00 for diagnosing liver fibrosis stage F1–F4, respectively. Conclusion: AI-supported systems provide promising performance improvements for diagnosing NAFLD, NASH, and identifying liver fibrosis among NAFLD patients. Prospective trials with direct comparisons between AI-assisted modalities and conventional methods are warranted before real-world implementation. Protocol registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021230391)

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of routine diagnostic test reduction interventions in patients admitted to the intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-34
Author(s):  
Katherine P Hooper ◽  
Matthew H Anstey ◽  
Edward Litton
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Significant Difference

Reducing unnecessary routine diagnostic testing has been identified as a strategy to curb wasteful healthcare. However, the safety and efficacy of targeted diagnostic testing strategies are uncertain. The aim of this study was to systematically review interventions designed to reduce pathology and chest radiograph testing in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). A predetermined protocol and search strategy included OVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until 20 November 2019. Eligible publications included interventional studies of patients admitted to an ICU. There were no language restrictions. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and test reduction. Key secondary outcomes included ICU mortality, length of stay, costs and adverse events. This systematic review analysed 26 studies (with more than 44,00 patients) reporting an intervention to reduce one or more diagnostic tests. No studies were at low risk of bias. In-hospital mortality, reported in seven studies, was not significantly different in the post-implementation group (829 of 9815 patients, 8.4%) compared with the pre-intervention group (1007 of 9848 patients, 10.2%), (relative risk 0.89, 95% confidence intervals 0.79 to 1.01, P = 0.06, I2 39%). Of the 18 studies reporting a difference in testing rates, all reported a decrease associated with targeted testing (range 6%–72%), with 14 (82%) studies reporting >20% reduction in one or more tests. Studies of ICU targeted test interventions are generally of low quality. The majority report substantial decreases in testing without evidence of a significant difference in hospital mortality.

scholarly journals Value of Xpert MTB/RIF Using Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong-Chao Liu ◽  
Yu-Lu Gao ◽  
Dan-Feng Li ◽  
Xi-Yi Zhao ◽  
Yuan-Qing Pan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pulmonary Tuberculosis ◽  
Bronchoalveolar Lavage ◽  
Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Culture Method ◽  
Lavage Fluid ◽  
Likelihood Ratios ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Background: The performance of Xpert MTB/RIF using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) remains unclear. Therefore, a systematic review/meta-analysis was conducted. Methods: Studies published before December 31, 2019, were retrieved from the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases using the keywords “pulmonary tuberculosis,” “Xpert MTB/RIF,” and “BAL.” Two independent evaluators extracted the data and assessed the bias risk of the included studies. A random-effects model was used to calculate the overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR, respectively), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC), as well as the respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Nineteen trials involving 3019 participants met the inclusion criteria. Compared to the culture method, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and the AUC with 95% CIs of Xpert MTB/RIF were 0.87 (0.84–0.90), 0.92 (0.91–0.93), 10.21 (5.78–18.02), 0.16 (0.12–0.22), 78.95 (38.59–161.53), and 0.9467 (0.9462-0.9472), respectively. Relative to the composite reference standard, the observed values were 0.69 (0.65–0.72), 0.98 (0.98–0.99), 37.50 (18.59–75.62), 0.30 (0.21–0.43), 171.98 (80.82–365.96), and 0.9691 (0.9683–0.9699), respectively. All subgroups, except children, showed high sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions: The use of Xpert MTB/RIF in the context of BAL samples has a high diagnostic performance for PTB (except for children) and may serve as an alternative rapid diagnostic tool.

scholarly journals Comparison of conventional, doppler and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of ovarian masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e052830
Author(s):  
Lizhang Xun ◽  
Lamei Zhai ◽  
Hui Xu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Doppler Us ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasonography ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Ovarian Masses

ObjectivesTo assess the value of conventional, Doppler and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) (conventional ultrasonography (US), Doppler US and CEUS) for diagnosing ovarian cancer.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were conducted for studies published until October 2021.Eligibility criteriaStudies assessed the diagnostic value of conventional US, Doppler US or CEUS for detecting ovarian cancer, with no restrictions placed on published language and status.Data extraction and synthesisThe study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent authors. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR and NLR), diagnostic OR (DOR) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were pooled using the bivariate generalised linear mixed model and random effects model.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 72 studies and involved 9296 women who presented with ovarian masses. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for conventional US were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87 to 0.94) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.91), 6.87 (95% CI: 4.98 to 9.49) and 0.10 (95% CI: 0.07 to 0.15), 57.52 (95% CI: 36.64 to 90.28) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93 to 0.97), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for Doppler US were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91 to 0.95) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.89), 6.10 (95% CI: 4.59 to 8.11) and 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06 to 0.11), 61.76 (95% CI: 39.99 to 95.37) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94 to 0.97), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for CEUS were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.99) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85 to 0.95), 11.47 (95% CI: 6.52 to 20.17) and 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.09), 152.11 (95% CI: 77.77 to 297.51) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97 to 0.99), respectively. Moreover, the AUC values for conventional US (p=0.002) and Doppler US (p=0.005) were inferior to those of CEUS.ConclusionsConventional US, Doppler US and CEUS have a relatively high differential diagnostic value for differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian masses. The diagnostic performance of CEUS was superior to that of conventional US and Doppler US.

scholarly journals Overtesting and undertesting in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e018557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack W O’Sullivan ◽  
Ali Albasri ◽  
Brian D Nicholson ◽  
Rafael Perera ◽  
Jeffrey K Aronson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Pulmonary Function ◽  
Diagnostic Test ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pulmonary Function Tests ◽  
Upper Endoscopy ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Function Tests

BackgroundHealth systems are currently subject to unprecedented financial strains. Inappropriate test use wastes finite health resources (overuse) and delays diagnoses and treatment (underuse). As most patient care is provided in primary care, it represents an ideal setting to mitigate waste.ObjectiveTo identify overuse and underuse of diagnostic tests in primary care.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources and eligibility criteriaWe searched MEDLINE and Embase from January 1999 to October 2017 for studies that measured the inappropriateness of any diagnostic test (measured against a national or international guideline) ordered for adult patients in primary care.ResultsWe included 357 171 patients from 63 studies in 15 countries. We extracted 103 measures of inappropriateness (41 underuse and 62 overuse) from included studies for 47 different diagnostic tests.The overall rate of inappropriate diagnostic test ordering varied substantially (0.2%–100%)%).17 tests were underused >50% of the time. Of these, echocardiography (n=4 measures) was consistently underused (between 54% and 89%, n=4). There was large variation in the rate of inappropriate underuse of pulmonary function tests (38%–78%, n=8).Eleven tests were inappropriately overused >50% of the time. Echocardiography was consistently overused (77%–92%), whereas inappropriate overuse of urinary cultures, upper endoscopy and colonoscopy varied widely, from 36% to 77% (n=3), 10%–54% (n=10) and 8%–52% (n=2), respectively.ConclusionsThere is marked variation in the appropriate use of diagnostic tests in primary care. Specifically, the use of echocardiography (both underuse and overuse) is consistently poor. There is substantial variation in the rate of inappropriate underuse of pulmonary function tests and the overuse of upper endoscopy, urinary cultures and colonoscopy.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016048832.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document