Diagnostic Accuracy of Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV for the Detection of Influenza and Respiratory Syncytial Viruses.

Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV is a fast and automated real-time nucleic acid amplification tool for detecting influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The aim of this study was to verify the accuracy of Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV for detecting influenza virus and RSV. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched up to October 2020. The quality of the original research was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 guidelines. Meta-DiSc 1.4 software was used to analyze the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve. Deek's funnel plot asymmetry test was used to evaluate the publication bias using the Stata 12.0 software. Ten studies with 25 fourfold tables were included in the analysis. The sensitivity of Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV for detecting influenza A, influenza B, and RSV were 0.97, 0.98, and 0.96, respectively, and the specificities were 0.97, 1.00, and 1.00, respectively. Compared with other common clinical real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV is a valuable tool for diagnosing influenza virus and RSV with high sensitivity and specificity.

Evaluation of the Diagnostic Efficacy of Xpert CT/NG for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae.

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) are widely spread across the world. Asymptomatic or inconspicuous CT/NG infections are difficult to diagnose and treat. Traditional methods have the disadvantages of low detection rate, inaccurate results, and long detection time. However, Xpert CT/NG makes up for the aforementioned shortcomings and has research value and popularization significance. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched, and studies were screened using Xpert CT/NG for diagnosing CT/NG. QUADAS-2 was used to evaluate the quality of the eligible studies. Then, two groups of researchers independently extracted data from these studies. Meta-analyses of sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC) of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were conducted using Meta-DiSc 1.4. Finally, Deek's funnel plots were made using Stata 12.0 to evaluate publication bias. RESULTS: 14 studies were identified, and 46 fourfold tables were extracted in this meta-analysis. The pooled SEN, SPE, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC in diagnosing CT were 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-0.95), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), 97.17 (95% CI: 56.76-166.32), 0.07 (95% CI: 0.04-0.12), 1857.25 (95% CI: 943.78-3654.86), and 0.9960, respectively. The pooled SEN, SPE, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC in diagnosing NG were 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.96), 1.00 (95% CI: 1.00-1.00), 278.15 (95% CI: 152.41-507.63), 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06-0.12), 4290.70 (95% CI: 2161.78-8516.16), and 0.9980, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Xpert CT/NG had high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for CT and NG. However, more evidence is required to confirm that Xpert CT/NG might serve as the primary method for detecting CT and NG and even the gold standard for diagnosis in the future.