Dataset Information

Stool specimen for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in adults: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Tuberculosis (TB) continues to be a significant health burden, most commonly affecting the lungs and referred to as pulmonary TB (PTB). Diagnostic techniques of PTB primarily rely on expectorated sputum samples. However, the diagnostic yields are often hindered due to insufficient volume and quality of the sputum specimens. Moreover, some individuals are unable to provide sputum samples due to scanty sputum production or difficulty in coughing up and require an invasive procedure to obtain a respiratory sample, such as bronchoscopic or gastric aspiration. Thus, challenges in the acquisition of respiratory specimens warrant an alternate specimen. Therefore, this systematic review aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a stool specimen for the diagnosis of PTB in adults.

Methods and analysis

We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science and Cochrane database from inception to April 2021 using a comprehensive search strategy. Two reviewers will independently perform screening, data extraction and quality assessment. The risk of bias assessment and applicability of results of eligible studies will be performed using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Bivariate random-effects models will be performed to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio along with 95% CI of stool specimen for each reported diagnostic method against any of the reference standard test (ie, mycobacterial culture or smear microscopy or Xpert assay using respiratory specimens). Heterogeneity between studies will be assessed by I² statistics and Q statistic of the χ² test.

Ethics and dissemination

The results will be disseminated through publishing in a peer-reviewed medical journal and public presentations in relevant national and international conferences. As this is a systematic review of publicly available data, ethics approval is not required.

Prospero registration number

CRD42021245203.

SUBMITTER: Sultana S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8375732 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTuberculosis (TB) diagnosis in children is a major challenge with up to 94% of children with TB treated empirically in TB high-burden countries. Paediatric tuberculosis (PTB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally, particularly in developing countries. Most deaths/morbidity from TB in paediatrics could be prevented with early diagnosis and appropriate treatment. The main objective of this systematic review is to examine the evidence whether real-time polymerase chain reaction assay could be the most accurate clinical laboratory diagnostic methodology for the Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) detection in paediatrics.MethodsWe will search MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, BIOSIS, LILACS, Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialised Register (CIDG SR), Global Health, and CINAHL for published studies that recruited children less than 16 years of age being investigated for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) infection using real-time polymerase chain reaction assay accompanied by mycobacteriological culture investigation as the reference standard. There will be no restriction regarding the language, date of publication, and publication status. We will include randomised controlled trials and observational studies (cohort, cross-sectional) in the review. Selection of studies, data extraction and management, assessment of risk of bias, and quality of evidence will be performed by two independent reviewers (EB and BC). A third researcher will be consulted in case of discrepancies. Depending on the availability and quality of the data, a meta-analysis will be performed. Otherwise, findings will be qualitatively reported.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the detection of MTB from all clinical sample types using real-time polymerase chain reaction assay in paediatric population. This review will make available evidence on the accuracy, approach, and interpretation of results of this assay in the context of MTB diagnosis which will meet an urgent need, considering the challenges of MTB diagnosis in paediatrics.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018104052.

Project description:BackgroundSuboptimal diagnostics for pulmonary tuberculosis drive the use of the so-called trial of antibiotics, a course of broad-spectrum antibiotics without activity against Mycobacterium tuberculosis that is given to patients who are mycobacteriology negative but symptomatic, with the aim of distinguishing pulmonary tuberculosis from bacterial lower respiratory tract infection. The underlying assumption-that patients with lower respiratory tract infection will improve, whereas those with pulmonary tuberculosis will not-has an unclear evidence base for such a widely used intervention (at least 26·5 million courses are prescribed per year). We aimed to collate available evidence on the diagnostic performance of the trial of antibiotics.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Health databases for studies published up to March 15, 2019, that investigated the sensitivity and specificity of the trial of antibiotics against mycobacteriology tests in adults (≥15 years) with tuberculosis symptoms. We used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess the risk of bias. We estimated pooled values for sensitivity and specificity of trial of antibiotics (as the index text) versus mycobacteriology tests (as the reference standard) using random-effects bivariate modelling, and we used the I2 statistic to assess heterogeneity between studies contributing to these estimates. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017083915.FindingsOf the 9410 articles identified by our search, eight studies were eligible for inclusion. The studies were from seven countries in Africa, South America, and Asia, and involved 2786 participants. Six studies used mycobacterial culture as the reference standard, and six used penicillins for the trial of antibiotics. The treatment duration, number of antimicrobial courses, and definition of what constituted response to treatment varied substantially between studies. The pooled sensitivity (67%, 95% CI 42-85) and specificity (73%, 58-85) of the trial of antibiotics versus mycobacteriology tests were below internationally defined minimum performance profiles for tuberculosis diagnostics and had substantial heterogeneity (I2 was 96% for sensitivity and 99% for specificity). Each included study failed on one or more domain of the QUADAS-2 tool.InterpretationCurrent policy and practice regarding the trial of antibiotics appear inappropriate, given the weak evidence base, poor diagnostic performance, potential contribution to the global antimicrobial resistance crisis, and adverse individual and public health consequences from the misclassification of tuberculosis status. Antibiotic strategies during tuberculosis investigations should instead optimise clinical outcomes, ideally guided by clinical trials in both inpatient and outpatient groups.FundingHelse Nord RHF, Wellcome Trust, and the UK Commonwealth Scholarship Commission.

Project description:BackgroundCholera continues to pose a problem for low-resource, fragile and humanitarian contexts. Evidence suggests that 2.86 million cholera cases and 95,000 deaths due to cholera are reported annually. Without quick and effective diagnosis and treatment, case-fatality may be 50%. In line with the priorities of the Global Task Force on Cholera Control, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy and other test characteristics of current tests for cholera detection in stool and water.MethodsWe searched 11 bibliographic and grey literature databases. Data was extracted on test sensitivity, specificity and other product information. Meta-analyses of sensitivity and specificity were conducted for tests reported in three or more studies. Where fewer studies reported a test, estimates were summarised through narrative synthesis. Risk of Bias was assessed using QUADAS-2.ResultsSearches identified 6,637 records; 41 studies reporting on 28 tests were included. Twenty-two tests had both sensitivities and specificities reported above 95% by at least one study, but there was, overall, wide variation in reported diagnostic accuracy across studies. For the three tests where meta-analyses were possible the highest sensitivity meta-estimate was found in the Cholera Screen test (98.6%, CI: 94.7%-99.7%) and the highest specificity meta-estimate in the Crystal VC on enriched samples (98.3%, CI: 92.8%-99.6%). There was a general lack of evidence regarding field use of tests, but where presented this indicated trends for lower diagnostic accuracy in field settings, with lesser-trained staff, and without the additional process of sample enrichment. Where reported, mean test turnaround times ranged from over 50% to 130% longer than manufacturer's specification. Most studies had a low to unclear risk of bias.ConclusionsCurrently available Rapid Diagnostic Tests can potentially provide high diagnostic and detection capability for cholera. However, stronger evidence is required regarding the conditions required to secure these levels of accuracy in field use, particularly in low-resource settings.RegistrationPROSPERO (CRD42016048428).

Project description:BackgroundSerological (antibody detection) tests for tuberculosis (TB) are widely used in developing countries. As part of a World Health Organization policy process, we performed an updated systematic review to assess the diagnostic accuracy of commercial serological tests for pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB with a focus on the relevance of these tests in low- and middle-income countries.Methods and findingsWe used methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration and GRADE approach for rating quality of evidence. In a previous review, we searched multiple databases for papers published from 1 January 1990 to 30 May 2006, and in this update, we add additional papers published from that period until 29 June 2010. We prespecified subgroups to address heterogeneity and summarized test performance using bivariate random effects meta-analysis. For pulmonary TB, we included 67 studies (48% from low- and middle-income countries) with 5,147 participants. For all tests, estimates were variable for sensitivity (0% to 100%) and specificity (31% to 100%). For anda-TB IgG, the only test with enough studies for meta-analysis, pooled sensitivity was 76% (95% CI 63%-87%) in smear-positive (seven studies) and 59% (95% CI 10%-96%) in smear-negative (four studies) patients; pooled specificities were 92% (95% CI 74%-98%) and 91% (95% CI 79%-96%), respectively. Compared with ELISA (pooled sensitivity 60% [95% CI 6%-65%]; pooled specificity 98% [95% CI 96%-99%]), immunochromatographic tests yielded lower pooled sensitivity (53%, 95% CI 42%-64%) and comparable pooled specificity (98%, 95% CI 94%-99%). For extrapulmonary TB, we included 25 studies (40% from low- and middle-income countries) with 1,809 participants. For all tests, estimates were variable for sensitivity (0% to 100%) and specificity (59% to 100%). Overall, quality of evidence was graded very low for studies of pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB.ConclusionsDespite expansion of the literature since 2006, commercial serological tests continue to produce inconsistent and imprecise estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Quality of evidence remains very low. These data informed a recently published World Health Organization policy statement against serological tests. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.