RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: GeneXpert enterovirus Assay is a PCR-based assay for Enterovirus meningitis diagnosis. However, there is currently no research about the performance of GeneXpert enterovirus assay in the diagnosis of enterovirus meningitis. Thus, a systematic review and meta-analysis is significant on the topic. METHODS: Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PubMed were systematically reviewed with retrieval types. Some criteria were used to filter the studies. Only studies published in English, that made a comparison between GeneXpert enterovirus assay and RT-PCR, and could be formulated in a 2*2 table, were included. The quality of the included studies was evaluated by QUADAS-2. The effect of the GeneXpert enterovirus assay was assessed by the Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Likelihood Ratio, Negative Likelihood Ratio, Diagnosis Odds Ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Publication bias and heterogeneity were evaluated by the Deeks' funnel test and Bivariate Box plot respectively. RESULTS: 7 studies were recruited in the analysis. The Pooled Sensitivity was 0.96 [95% CI (0.94-0.97)], Pooled Specificity was 0.99 [95% CI (0.98-0.99)], Positive Likelihood Ratio was 130.46 [95% CI (35.79-475.58)], Negative Likelihood Ratio was 0.04 [95% CI (0.02-0.10)], and Diagnostic Odds Ratio was 3648.23 (95% CI [963.99-13,806.72)]. In SROC Curve, Area Under Curve (AUC) was 0.9980, and Q*= 0.9849. In Deeks' funnel test, the P-value was 0.807 (P > 0.05), indicating no publication bias. The Bivariate Box plot indicated no evident heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: The GeneXpert enterovirus assay demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing enterovirus meningitis.
Asunto(s)
Meningitis , Humanos , Curva ROC , Sensibilidad y EspecificidadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Line probe assays (LPAs) are PCR-based assays used for the rapid diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB). But studies on its performance are insufficient. Thus, in this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of LPAs in the detection of MTB and drug-resistant TB in comparison with the traditional culture and DST methods. METHODS: A systemic literature search was conducted on the Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and OVID databases. All the included studies were classified according to different detecting objects. Sensitivity, specificity, Positive Likely Ratio (PLR), Negative Likely Ratio (NLR), Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR), corresponding 95% confidence interval, Area Under Curve (AUC), Deeks' funnel plot, and Bivariate Boxplot was used to do the evaluation. RESULTS: 147 studies included 491 datasets, with 182,448 samples, were incorporated into our analysis. The sensitivity (95% CI), specificity (95% CI), PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for MTB were 0.89 (0.86 to 0.92), 0.94 (0.90 to 0.97), 15.70, 0.11, 139 and 0.96, respectively; for rifampicin-resistant TB were 0.96 (0.95 to 0.97), 0.99 (0.98 to 0.99), 82.9, 0.04, 1994 and 1.00, respectively; for isoniazid-resistant TB were 0.91 (0.89 to 0.93), 0.99 (0.98 to 0.99), 83.4, 0.09, (0.99 to 1.00), 195.7, 0.07, 2783 and 1.00, respectively; for Multi-drug resistant TB (MDR-TB) were 0.93 (0.90 to 0.95), 1.00 (0.99 to 1.00), 195.7, 0.07, 2783 and 1.00, respectively; for extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB) were 0.60 (0.33 to 0.82), 1.00 (0.95 to 1.00), 291.3, 0.4, 726 and 0.95, respectively; for (second-line drug-resistant TB) SLID-TB were 0.83 (0.78 to 0.87), 0.98 (0.97 to 0.99), 44.6, 0.17, 262 and 0.98, respectively. Sensitivity in pre-extensively drug-resistant TB (Pre-XDR-TB) was 0.67, specificity was 0.91. No publication bias existed according to Deeks' funnel plot. CONCLUSION: High diagnosis performance was confirmed in LPAs for the diagnosis of MTB and drug-resistant TB. LPAs might be a good alternative to culture and DST in detecting MTB, RR-TB, INH-TB, XDR-TB, SLID-TB, and MDR-TB. While more studies were still needed to explore the diagnosis performance of LPAs for Pre-XDR TB.