Dataset Information

Accuracy of penicillin allergy diagnostic tests: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Having a penicillin allergy label associates with a higher risk for antibiotic resistance and increased health care use.

Objective

We sought to assess the accuracy of skin tests and specific IgE quantification in the diagnostic evaluation of patients reporting a penicillin/β-lactam allergy.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis, searching on MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. We included studies conducted in patients reporting a penicillin allergy and in whom skin tests and/or specific IgE quantification were performed and compared with drug challenge results. We quantitatively assessed the accuracy of diagnostic tests with bivariate random-effects meta-analyses. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore causes of heterogeneity. Studies' quality was evaluated using QUADAS-2 criteria.

Results

We included 105 primary studies, assessing 31,761 participants. Twenty-seven studies were assessed by bivariate meta-analysis. Skin tests had a summary sensitivity of 30.7% (95% CI, 18.9%-45.9%) and a specificity of 96.8% (95% CI, 94.2%-98.3%), with a partial area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.686 (I² = 38.2%). Similar results were observed for subanalyses restricted to patients reporting nonimmediate maculopapular exanthema or urticaria/angioedema. Specific IgE had a summary sensitivity of 19.3% (95% CI, 12.0%-29.4%) and a specificity of 97.4% (95% CI, 95.2%-98.6%), with a partial area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.420 (I² = 8.5%). Projected predictive values mainly reflect the low frequency of true penicillin allergy.

Conclusions

Skin tests and specific IgE quantification appear to have low sensitivity and high specificity. Because current evidence is insufficient for assessing the role of these tests in stratifying patients for delabeling, we identified key requirements needed for future studies.

SUBMITTER: Sousa-Pinto B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8019189 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.Results5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).ConclusionHigher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179452.

Project description:AimThis systematic review aimed to ascertain the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of screening tests for early detection of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes in previously undiagnosed adults.MethodsThis systematic review included published studies that included one or more index tests (random and fasting tests, HbA1c) for glucose detection, with 75-gram Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (or 2-hour post load glucose) as a reference standard (PROSPERO ID CRD42018102477). Seven databases were searched electronically (from their inception up to March 9, 2020) accompanied with bibliographic and website searches. Records were manually screened and full text were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, data extraction was done using standardized form and quality assessment of studies using QUADAS-2 tool. Meta-analysis was done using bivariate model using Stata 14.0. Optimal cut offs in terms of sensitivity and specificity for the tests were analysed using R software.ResultsOf 7,151 records assessed by title and abstract, a total of 37 peer reviewed articles were included in this systematic review. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) for diagnosing diabetes with HbA1c (6.5%; venous sample; n = 17 studies) were 50% (95% CI: 42-59%), 97.3% (95% CI: 95.3-98.4), 18.32 (95% CI: 11.06-30.53) and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.43-0.60), respectively. However, the optimal cut-off for diagnosing diabetes in previously undiagnosed adults with HbA1c was estimated as 6.03% with pooled sensitivity of 73.9% (95% CI: 68-79.1%) and specificity of 87.2% (95% CI: 82-91%). The optimal cut-off for Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) was estimated as 104 milligram/dL (mg/dL) with a sensitivity of 82.3% (95% CI: 74.6-88.1%) and specificity of 89.4% (95% CI: 85.2-92.5%).ConclusionOur findings suggest that at present recommended threshold of 6.5%, HbA1c is more specific and less sensitive in diagnosing the newly detected diabetes in undiagnosed population from community settings. Lowering of thresholds for HbA1c and FPG to 6.03% and 104 mg/dL for early detection in previously undiagnosed persons for screening purposes may be considered.

Project description:ObjectivePossible childhood appendicitis is a common emergency presentation. The exact value of blood tests is debated. This study sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of four blood tests (white cell count (WCC), neutrophil(count or percentage), C reactive protein (CRP) and/or procalcitonin) for childhood appendicitis.DesignA systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, Web of Science searched from inception-March 2022 with reference searching and authors contacted for missing/unclear data. Eligibility criteria was studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of the four blood tests compared to the reference standard (histology or follow-up). Risk of bias was assessed (QUADAS-2), pooled sensitivity and specificity were generated for each test and commonly presented cut-offs. To provide insight into clinical impact, we present strategies using a hypothetical cohort.Results67 studies were included (34 839 children, 13 342 with appendicitis), all in the hospital setting. The most sensitive tests were WCC (≥10 000 cells/µL, 53 studies sensitivity 0.85 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.89)) and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) (≥7500 cells/µL, five studies sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.94)). Combination of WCC or CRP increased sensitivity further(≥10 000 cells/µL or ≥10 mg/L, individual patient data (IPD) of 6 studies, 0.97 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.99)).Applying results to a hypothetical cohort(1000 children with appendicitis symptoms, of whom 400 have appendicitis) 60 and 40 children would be wrongly discharged based solely on WCC and ANC, respectively, 12 with combination of WCC or CRP.The most specific tests were CRP alone (≥50 mg/L, 38 studies, specificity 0.87 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.91)) or combined with WCC (≥10 000 cells/µL and ≥50 mg/L, IPD of six studies, 0.93 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.95)).ConclusionsThe best performing single blood tests for ruling-out paediatric appendicitis are WCC or ANC; with accuracy improved combining WCC and CRP. These tests could be used at the point of care in combination with clinical prediction rules. We provide insight into the best cut-offs for clinical application.Prospero registration numberCRD42017080036.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of different endometrial sampling tests for detecting endometrial carcinoma.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of studies of diagnostic accuracy.Data sourcesCochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus, from the date of inception of the databases to 18 January 2023. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies and other systematic reviews were thoroughly searched.Eligibility criteriaWe included published cross-sectional studies that evaluated any endometrial sampling test (index tests) in women (participants) with clinical suspicion of endometrial carcinoma (target condition) in comparison with histopathology of hysterectomy specimens (reference standard). We excluded case-control and case series studies. No restrictions on language or date of publication were applied.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted study data and assessed study quality using the revised quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2). We used bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis and presented the results in a summary receiver operating characteristic curve. We assessed the certainty of evidence as recommended by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach.ResultsTwelve studies (1607 participants), published between 1986 and 2022, contributed data to the meta-analysis results. Seven studies were judged to be at a low risk of bias in all domains and all studies had low applicability concerns. The most studied index tests were Pipelle and conventional dilation and curettage (D&C). The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio (95% CIs) for Pipelle were 0.774 (0.565 to 0.900), 0.985 (0.927 to 0.997), 97.000 (14.000 to 349.000) and 0.241 (0.101 to 0.442) and for conventional D&C were 0.880 (0.281 to 0.993), 0.984 (0.956 to 0.995), 59.300 (14.200 to 153.000) and 0.194 (0.007 to 0.732), respectively.ConclusionHigh certainty evidence indicates that endometrial sampling using Pipelle or conventional D&C is accurate in diagnosing endometrial cancer. Studies assessing other endometrial sampling tests were sparse.Trial registration numberhttps://osf.io/h8e9z.

Project description:IntroductionThe diagnosis of cardiac contusion, caused by blunt chest trauma, remains a challenge due to the non-specific symptoms it causes and the lack of ideal tests to diagnose myocardial damage. A cardiac contusion can be life-threatening if not diagnosed and treated promptly. Several diagnostic tests have been used to evaluate the risk of cardiac complications, but the challenge of identifying patients with contusions nevertheless remains.Aim of the studyTo evaluate the accuracy of diagnostic tests for detecting blunt cardiac injury (BCI) and its complications, in patients with severe chest injuries, who are assessed in an emergency department or by any front-line emergency physician.MethodsA targeted search strategy was performed using Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases from 1993 up to October 2022. Data on at least one of the following diagnostic tests: electrocardiogram (ECG), serum creatinine phosphokinase-MB level (CPK-MB), echocardiography (Echo), Cardiac troponin I (cTnI) or Cardiac troponin T (cTnT). Diagnostic tests for cardiac contusion were evaluated for their accuracy in meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 and the QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess bias of the studies.ResultsThis systematic review yielded 51 studies (n = 5,359). The weighted mean incidence of myocardial injuries after sustaining a blunt force trauma stood at 18.3% of cases. Overall weighted mean mortality among patients with blunt cardiac injury was 7.6% (1.4-36.4%). Initial ECG, cTnI, cTnT and transthoracic echocardiography TTE all showed high specificity (> 80%), but lower sensitivity (< 70%). TEE had a specificity of 72.1% (range 35.8-98.2%) and sensitivity of 86.7% (range 40-99.2%) in diagnosing cardiac contusion. CK-MB had the lowest diagnostic odds ratio of 3.598 (95% CI: 1.832-7.068). Normal ECG accompanied by normal cTnI showed a high sensitivity of 85% in ruling out cardiac injuries.ConclusionEmergency physicians face great challenges in diagnosing cardiac injuries in patients following blunt trauma. In the majority of cases, joint use of ECG and cTnI was a pragmatic and cost-effective approach to rule out cardiac injuries. In addition, TEE may be highly accurate in identifying cardiac injuries in suspected cases.