Dataset Information

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF Assay for Lymph Node Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF for lymph node tuberculosis (LNTB).

Methods

We searched databases for published reports. We reviewed the studies and identified the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF with respect to a composite reference standard (CRS) and culture. We used a bivariate random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and used metaregression to analyze sources of heterogeneity.

Results

15 independent studies compared Xpert MTB/RIF with CRS while 21 comparing it with culture were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert MTB/RIF were 79% and 98% compared to that of CRS, respectively, and 84% and 91% compared to that of culture, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity using fine needle aspiration (FNA) samples versus CRS were 80% and 96%, whereas those against culture were 90% and 89%, respectively. The percentages while working with tissue samples versus CRS were 76% and 100%, respectively, whereas those against culture were 76% and 92%, respectively. There was no significant difference in diagnostic efficiency among the types of specimen.

Conclusions

Xpert MTB/RIF demonstrates good diagnostic efficiency for LNTB and is not related to the type of specimen, obtained via different routes.

SUBMITTER: Yu G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6545759 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF Assay for Lymph Node Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Yu Guocan G Zhong Fangming F Ye Bo B Xu Xudong X Chen Da D Shen Yanqin Y

BioMed research international 20190519

<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF for lymph node tuberculosis (LNTB).<h4>Methods</h4>We searched databases for published reports. We reviewed the studies and identified the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF with respect to a composite reference standard (CRS) and culture. We used a bivariate random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and used metaregression to analyze sources of heterogeneity.<h4>Results</h4>15 independent studies compared Xpert MTB/RIF with CRS while ...[more]

PMID: 31236407

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundXpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) might have higher sensitivity than its predecessor, Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), but its role in tuberculous meningitis diagnosis is uncertain. We aimed to compare Xpert Ultra with Xpert for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis in HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected adults.MethodsIn this prospective, randomised, diagnostic accuracy study, adults (≥16 years) with suspected tuberculous meningitis from a single centre in Vietnam were randomly assigned to cerebrospinal fluid testing by either Xpert Ultra or Xpert at baseline and, if treated for tuberculous meningitis, after 3-4 weeks of treatment. Test performance (sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values) was calculated for Xpert Ultra and Xpert and compared against clinical and mycobacterial culture reference standards. Analyses were done for all patients and by HIV status.FindingsBetween Oct 16, 2017, and Feb 10, 2019, 205 patients were randomly assigned to Xpert Ultra (n=103) or Xpert (n=102). The sensitivities of Xpert Ultra and Xpert for tuberculous meningitis diagnosis against a reference standard of definite, probable, and possible tuberculous meningitis were 47·2% (95% CI 34·4-60·3; 25 of 53 patients) for Xpert Ultra and 39·6% (27·6-53·1; 21 of 53) for Xpert (p=0·56); specificities were 100·0% (95% CI 92·0-100·0; 44 of 44) and 100·0% (92·6-100·0; 48 of 48), respectively. In HIV-negative patients, the sensitivity of Xpert Ultra was 38·9% (24·8-55·1; 14 of 36) versus 22·9% (12·1-39·0; eight of 35) by Xpert (p=0·23). In HIV co-infected patients, the sensitivities were 64·3% (38·8-83·7; nine of 14) for Xpert Ultra and 76·9% (49·7-91·8; ten of 13) for Xpert (p=0·77). Negative predictive values were 61·1% (49·6-71·5) for Xpert Ultra and 60·0% (49·0-70·0) for Xpert. Against a reference standard of mycobacterial culture, sensitivities were 90·9% (72·2-97·5; 20 of 22 patients) for Xpert Ultra and 81·8% (61·5-92·7; 18 of 22) for Xpert (p=0·66); specificities were 93·9% (85·4-97·6; 62 of 66) and 96·9% (89·5-91·2; 63 of 65), respectively. Six (22%) of 27 patients had a positive test by Xpert Ultra after 4 weeks of treatment versus two (9%) of 22 patients by Xpert.InterpretationXpert Ultra was not statistically superior to Xpert for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis in HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected adults. A negative Xpert Ultra or Xpert test does not rule out tuberculous meningitis. New diagnostic strategies are urgently required.FundingWellcome Trust and the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the evidence base regarding the use of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) when testing respiratory samples is well established, the evidence base for its diagnostic accuracy for extrapulmonary and sputum-scarce pulmonary TB when testing non-respiratory samples is less clearly defined.MethodsA systematic literature search of 7 electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, BIOSIS, Global Health Database, Scopus and Cochrane Database) was conducted to identify studies of the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert assay when testing non-respiratory samples compared with a culture-based reference standard. Data were extracted and study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated on a per-sample basis, stratified by sample type and smear microscopy status and summarised using forest plots. Pooled estimates were calculated for groups with sufficient data.ResultsTwenty-seven studies with a total of 6,026 non-respiratory samples were included. Among the 23 studies comparing Xpert and culture done on the same samples, sensitivity was very heterogeneous with a median sensitivity of 0.83 (IQR, 0.68-0.94) whereas specificities were typically very high (median, 0.98; IQR, 0.89-1.00). The pooled summary estimates of sensitivity when testing smear-positive and smear-negative samples were 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-1.00) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.60-0.80), respectively. Pooled summary estimates of sensitivity varied substantially between sample types: lymph node tissue, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.72-0.99); tissue samples of all types, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.76-0.94); pleural fluid, 0.34 (95% CI, 0.24-0.44); gastric aspirates for diagnosis of sputum-scarce pulmonary TB, 0.78 (IQR, 0.68 - 0.85). Median sensitivities when testing cerebrospinal fluid and non-pleural serous fluid samples were 0.85 (IQR, 0.75-1.00) and 0.67 (IQR, 0.00-1.00), respectively.ConclusionXpert detects with high specificity the vast majority of EPTB cases with smear-positive non-respiratory samples and approximately two-thirds of those with smear-negative samples. Xpert is a useful rule-in diagnostic test for EPTB, especially when testing cerebrospinal fluid and tissue samples. In addition, it has a high sensitivity for detecting pulmonary TB when using gastric aspirate samples. These findings support recent WHO guidelines regarding the use of Xpert for TB diagnosis from non-respiratory samples.

Project description:Background: The Xpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis/rifampin (MTB/RIF) assay has shown good diagnostic efficacy in brushing and biopsy tissue samples from patients with tracheobronchial tuberculosis (TBTB). However, its diagnostic value in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) is still unclear. Therefore, the present retrospective study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in BALF. Methods: The clinical data of 266 patients with suspected TBTB from January 2018 to October 2020 were pooled with complete details of bronchial brush and bronchoalveolar lavage samples. Smears of the bronchial brushings were stained with Auramine O stain to detect acid-fast bacilli (AFB), and BALF samples were used for culturing MTB with the BACTEC MGIT 960 system and the Xpert MTB/RIF assay. The diagnostic performance of these methods was assessed and compared. Results: A total of 266 patients suspected to have TBTB were enrolled in the final analysis. Of these patients, 179 patients were confirmed to have TBTB and 87 patients were non-TBTB. The sensitivity of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in BALF (87.2%) was significantly higher than that of the brush smear for AFB (35.2%, p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the sensitivities of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in BALF and MTB culture in BALF (87.2 vs. 84.9%, p = 0.542). The specificities of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in BALF, MTB culture in BALF, and the bronchial brush smear were 97.7, 97.7, and 98.9%, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in BALF, MTB culture in BALF, and the bronchial brush smear were 98.7 and 78.7%, 98.7 and 75.9%, and 98.4 and 42.6%, respectively. Among the MTB culture-positive patients with TBTB detected by the Xpert assay, 27.0% (20/74) were identified to be resistant to RIF. Conclusions: The Xpert MTB/RIF assay in BALF enables a rapid and accurate diagnosis of TBTB and identification of RIF resistance, which is crucial for timely and proper treatment. Moreover, in patients with TBTB, BALF could be used as an alternative to bronchial brushing and biopsy tissues for the Xpert MTB/RIF assay.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF Assay for Lymph Node Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF Assay for Lymph Node Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets