Diagnostic performance of rapid on-site evaluation during bronchoscopy for lung cancer: A comprehensive meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Screening high-risk populations for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality. Bronchoscopy is a diagnostic procedure used to monitor patients suspected of having lung cancer after LDCT. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) can improve the diagnostic accuracy of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), although its diagnostic value remains unclear. In this meta-analysis, the authors evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of ROSE during bronchoscopy. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of ROSE for lung cancer during bronchoscopy. Studies evaluating the performance of ROSE and articles providing sufficient data for constructing a 2 × 2 table on a per-lesion basis were included. A meta-analysis was conducted using a bivariate random-effects model. RESULTS: In total, 32 studies involving 8243 lung lesions were included with a pooled sensitivity of 91.8% and a pooled specificity of 94.9%. Subgroup analysis of 12 studies involving 2929 specimens from patients who underwent computed tomography revealed a pooled sensitivity of 93.8% and a pooled specificity of 96%. Further subgroup analysis of seven studies on the diagnostic outcomes of ROSE for intrathoracic or mediastinal lymph nodes through EBUS-TBNA for lung cancer staging revealed a pooled sensitivity of 90.1% and a pooled specificity of 96.9%. CONCLUSIONS: ROSE exhibited high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing lung cancer during bronchoscopy. It also exhibited high sensitivity in detecting lung cancer in patients undergoing LDCT and higher specificity for nodal staging with EBUS-TBNA.

Assessment of the detection accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Real-time and appropriate antigen tests play a pivotal role in preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, a previous meta-analysis reported that the antigen test had lower sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children. To provide a comprehensive evaluation of diagnostic efficiency, we performed an updated meta-analysis to assess the detection accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests stratified by days after symptom onset and specimen type in children and adolescents. METHODS: We comprehensively searched for appropriate studies in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies on the diagnostic accuracy of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 in children and adolescents were included. The relevant data of the included studies were extracted to construct a 2 × 2 table on a per-patient basis. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests were estimated using a bivariate random-effects model. RESULTS: Seventeen studies enrolling 10 912 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. For the detection accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests, the meta-analysis generated a pooled sensitivity of 77.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 67.3%-85.8%) and a pooled specificity of 99.6% (95% CI: 98.9%-99.8%). The subgroup analysis of studies that examined antigen tests in symptomatic participants ≦7 days after symptom onset generated a pooled sensitivity of 79.4% (95% CI: 47.6%-94.2%) and a pooled specificity of 99.4% (95% CI: 98.2%-99.8%). Another subgroup analysis of studies that evaluated nasal swab specimens demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 80.1% (95% CI: 65.0%-89.7%) and a pooled specificity of 98.5% (95% CI: 97.3%-9.2%). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrated that the antigen test performed using nasal swab specimens exhibited high sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 within 7 days after symptom onset. Therefore, antigen testing using nasal swabs may be effective in blocking SARS-CoV-2 transmission in children.

Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in the pediatric population: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Rapid identification and isolation of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 are critical methods for blocking COVID-19 transmission. The advantages of antigen tests, such as their relatively low cost and short turnaround time, can contribute to the prompt identification of infectious individuals. However, the diagnostic accuracy of antigen tests for COVID-19 in children remains inconclusive. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 in the pediatric population. METHODS: We conducted a literature search for relevant studies in the PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Biomed Central databases. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 in pediatric patients were included. In addition, we included studies that provided sufficient data to construct a 2 × 2 table on a per-patient basis. The final literature search was performed on October 10, 2021. Days after symptom onset, asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals may have been potential sources of heterogeneity. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the antigen tests were generated using a bivariate random-effects model. RESULTS: Five studies with 4400 participants were included. The meta-analysis of antigen tests generated a pooled sensitivity of 65.9% (95% CI: 52.8%-77.0%) and pooled specificity of 99.9% (95% CI: 98.9%-100.0%). A subgroup analysis of studies reporting antigen test data for symptomatic patients showed a pooled sensitivity of 64.5% and a pooled specificity of 99.7%. The subgroup analysis of studies that included 881 asymptomatic participants generated a pooled sensitivity of 48.4% and a pooled specificity of 99.5%. CONCLUSION: Antigen tests exhibit moderate sensitivity and high specificity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in children. Antigen tests might have moderate sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic children, and serial testing might effectively prevent further SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Viral Pneumonia during the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2019-2021 Evoking Needs for SARS-CoV-2 and Additional Vaccinations.

Coronaviruses can cause pneumonia, with clinical symptoms that may be similar to the symptoms of other viral pneumonias. To our knowledge, there have been no reports regarding cases of pneumonia caused by coronaviruses and other viruses among hospitalized patients in the past 3 years before and during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Here, we analysed the causes of viral pneumonia among hospitalized patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (2019-2021). Between September 2019 and April 2021, patients hospitalized at Shuang Ho Hospital in north Taiwan with a diagnosis of pneumonia were enrolled in this study. Age, sex, onset date, and season of occurrence were recorded. Respiratory tract pathogens were identified with molecular detection using the FilmArray® platform from nasopharyngeal swabs. In total, 1147 patients (128 patients aged <18 years and 1019 patients aged ≥18 years) with pneumonia and identified respiratory tract pathogens were assessed. Among the 128 children with pneumonia, the dominant viral respiratory pathogen was rhinovirus (24.2%), followed by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV; 22.7%), parainfluenza virus (1 + 2 + 3 + 4) (17.2%), adenovirus (12.5%), metapneumovirus (9.4%), coronavirus (1.6%), and influenza virus (A + B) (1.6%). Among the 1019 adults with pneumonia, the dominant viral respiratory pathogen was rhinovirus (5.0%), followed by RSV (2.0%), coronavirus (2.0%), metapneumovirus (1.5%), parainfluenza virus (1 + 2 + 3 + 4) (1.1%), adenovirus (0.7%), and influenza virus (A + B) (0%). From 2019-2021, older patients (aged >65 years) with pneumonia tested positive for coronavirus most commonly in autumn. Coronavirus was not detected during summer in children or adults. Among children aged 0-6 years, RSV was the most common viral pathogen, and RSV infection occurred most often in autumn. Metapneumovirus infection occurred most often in spring in both children and adults. In contrast, influenza virus was not detected in patients with pneumonia in any season among children or adults from January 2020 to April 2021. Among all patients with pneumonia, the most common viral pathogens were rhinovirus in spring, adenovirus and rhinovirus in summer, RSV and rhinovirus in autumn, and parainfluenza virus in winter. Among children aged 0-6 years, RSV, rhinovirus, and adenovirus were detected in all seasons during the study period. In conclusion, the proportion of pneumonia cases caused by a viral pathogen was higher in children than the proportion in adults. The COVID-19 pandemic period evoked a need for SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2) vaccination to prevent the severe complications of COVID-19. However, other viruses were also found. Vaccines for influenza were clinically applied. Active vaccines for other viral pathogens such as RSV, rhinovirus, metapneuomoccus, parainfluenza, and adenovirus may need to be developed for special groups in the future.

Clinical significance and intestinal microbiota composition in immunocompromised children with norovirus gastroenteritis.

BACKGROUND: Norovirus (NoV) infection is common in pediatric patients with immunodeficiency and is more likely to cause severe disease. Objective Our study aims to figure out the clinical differences and distribution of intestinal microbiota in immunocompromised children with NoV gastroenteritis. METHODS: Pediatric patients admitted to Shang-Ho Hospital with diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis including different immune status were enrolled and their medical records were reviewed. NoV gastroenteritis was validated using RT-PCR molecular methods. Viral shedding period was determined by real-time RT-PCR assays. Intestinal microbiota enrichment analysis was carried out by next generation sequencing after fecal DNA extraction and subsequent Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) Effect Size (LEfSe) method. RESULTS: Significantly higher frequency of diarrhea [mean, (IQR), 3.8 (3-5) /day] and longer viral shedding time [mean, IQR, 8.5 (5-13) days] was found in immunocompromised NoV infections than in immunocompetent patients without NoV infections (p = 0.013*) and immunocompetent patients with NoV infections (p = 0.030**). The fever prevalence was significantly lower in immunocompromised NoV infections than in different immune or infection status. Intestinal microbiota metagenomics analysis showed no significant community richness difference while the LEfSe analysis showed a significant difference in commensal richness at the phylum level, the family level, and the genus level in patients under different immune status. CONCLUSION: We evaluated the clinical significances and microbiota composition in immunocompromised children with norovirus gastroenteritis. This will further facilitate studies of the interaction between the intestinal microbiota in such patients with precise determination of their bacterial infection control and probiotic supplements strategy.

Diagnostic Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Tests for Community Transmission Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused the global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Rapid identification and isolation of infectious patients are critical methods to block COVID-19 transmission. Antigen tests can contribute to prompt identification of infectious individuals. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2. We conducted a literature search in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Biomed Central databases. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 in community participants were included. Only English-language articles were reviewed. We included eligible studies that provided available data to construct a 2 × 2 table on a per-patient basis. Overall sensitivity and specificity for antigen tests were generated using a bivariate random-effects model. Eighteen studies with 34,865 participants were retrieved. The meta-analysis for SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests generated a pooled sensitivity of 0.82 and a pooled specificity of 1.00. A subgroup analysis of ten studies that reported outcomes for 5629 symptomatic participants generated a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 and a pooled specificity of 1.00. Antigen tests might have higher sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients in the community and may be an effective tool to identify patients to be quarantined to prevent further SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 antigen tests: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to affect countries worldwide. To inhibit the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), testing of patients, contact tracing, and quarantine of their close contacts have been used as major nonpharmaceutical interventions. The advantages of antigen tests, such as low cost and rapid turnaround, may allow for the rapid identification of larger numbers of infectious persons. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Biomed Central databases from inception to January 2, 2021. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 with reference standards were included. We included studies that provided sufficient data to construct a 2 × 2 table on a per-patient basis. Only articles in English were reviewed. Summary sensitivity and specificity for antigen tests were generated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Fourteen studies with 8624 participants were included. The meta-analysis for antigen testing generated a pooled sensitivity of 79% (95% CI, 66%-88%; 14 studies, 8624 patients) and a pooled specificity of 100% (95% CI, 99%-100%; 14 studies, 8624 patients). The subgroup analysis of studies that reported specimen collection within 7 days after symptom onset showed a pooled sensitivity of 95% (95% CI, 78%-99%; four studies, 1342 patients) and pooled specificity of 100% (95% CI, 97%-100%; four studies, 1342 patients). Regarding the applicability, the patient selection, index tests, and reference standards of studies in our meta-analysis matched the review title. CONCLUSION: Antigen tests have moderate sensitivity and high specificity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Antigen tests might have a higher sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 within 7 days after symptom onset. Based on our findings, antigen testing might be an effective method for identifying contagious individuals to block SARS-CoV-2 transmission.