Diagnostic Accuracy of Nucleic Acid Amplification-Based Assays for Clostridium perfringens-Associated Diseases: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Timely and accurate methods for detecting Clostridium perfringens-associated diseases (CPAD) are crucial to improve patient care. A number of studies have evaluated the accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) in detecting CPAD, but decisive results about their effectiveness have not been reported. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of NAAT for detecting C. perfringens in clinical diarrheal samples. Five databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library were systematically probed for studies published before 6 December 2019. From 2,632 citations, we identified five eligible studies comprising 817 samples. Three studies (n = 695 samples) compared NAAT with a microbiological culture while the other three studies (n = 322 samples) compared NAAT with an immunoassay. NAAT revealed higher diagnostic accuracy against immunoassay (sensitivity, 0.53 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.7]; specificity, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.95 to 0.99]; positive likelihood ratio [PLR], 23.2 [95% CI, 3.49 to 153.98]; negative likelihood ratio [NLR], 0.25 [95% CI, 0 to 245.28]; diagnostic odds ratio [DOR], 74.11 [95% CI, 2.11 to 2,593.7]) than microbiological culture (sensitivity, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.41]; specificity, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.93 to 0.97]; PLR, 11.56 [95% CI, 3.87 to 34.6]; NLR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.27 to 1.21]; DOR, 18.1 [95% CI, 4.83 to 67.8]). NAAT pooled specificity was consistently ≥95% against that of applied reference standards. A meta-regression and subgroup analysis of sample condition, gene target, study design, and reference standards could not explain the heterogeneity (P > 0.05) in the diagnostic efficiency. The analysis has demonstrated that the diagnostic accuracy of NAAT is relatively insufficient to replace traditional reference standards as a single diagnostic test. NAAT can be applied in combination with microbiological culture because of the advantage of time to result and in scenarios where traditional tests are not feasible. Further investigations in this direction with larger sample sizes are still warranted to support our findings.

Clinical validation of urine-based Xpert® MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of urogenital tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Effective methods for diagnosing urogenital tuberculosis (UGTB) are important for its clinical management. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review to assess the performance of the urine-based Xpert MTB/RIF assay for UGTB. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane library, and Scopus were systematically searched up to July 30, 2019. A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) was applied to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and odds ratio (OR) for the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert test. RESULTS: Our search identified 858 unique articles from which 69 studies were selected for full-text revision, with 12 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Eleven studies comprising 1202 samples compared Xpert with mycobacterial culture, while 924 samples from eight studies compared it with a composite reference standard (CRS). The values for pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and OR were 0.89, 0.95, 20.1, 0.18, and 159.53, respectively, when compared with the mycobacterial culture. Likewise, when compared with a CRS, the respective pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and OR values were 0.55, 0.99, 40.67, 0.43, and 166.17, thereby suggesting a high level of accuracy for diagnosing UGTB. A meta-regression and sub-group analysis of TB-burden countries, study design, decontamination, concentration, and reference standard could not explain the heterogeneity (p > 0.05) in the diagnostic efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that Xpert is a promising diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of UGTB via urine specimen.