Leeflang Mariska M G, Debets-Ossenkopp Yvette J, Wang Junfeng, Visser Caroline E, Scholten Rob J P M, Hooft Lotty, Bijlmer Henk A, Reitsma Johannes B, Zhang Mingming, Bossuyt Patrick M M, Vandenbroucke-Grauls Christina M
Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22700, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1100 DE.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Dec 30;2015(12):CD007394. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007394.pub2.
Invasive aspergillosis is the most common life-threatening opportunistic invasive mycosis in immunocompromised patients. A test for invasive aspergillosis should neither be too invasive nor too great a burden for the already weakened patient. The serum galactomannan enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) seems to have the potential to meet both requirements.
To obtain summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of galactomannan detection in serum for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science with both MeSH terms and text words for both aspergillosis and the sandwich ELISA. We checked the reference lists of included studies and review articles for additional studies. We conducted the searches in February 2014.
We included cross-sectional studies, case-control designs and consecutive series of patients assessing the diagnostic accuracy of galactomannan detection for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis in patients with neutropenia or patients whose neutrophils are functionally compromised. The reference standard was composed of the criteria given by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and the Mycoses Study Group (MSG).
Two review authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We carried out meta-analysis using the bivariate method. We investigated sources of heterogeneity by adding potential sources of heterogeneity to the model as covariates.
We included 54 studies in the review (50 in the meta-analyses), containing 5660 patients, of whom 586 had proven or probable invasive aspergillosis. When using an optical density index (ODI) of 0.5 as a cut-off value, the sensitivity of the test was 82% (73% to 90%) and the specificity was 81% (72% to 90%). At a cut-off value of 1.0 ODI, the sensitivity was 72% (65% to 80%) and the specificity was 88% (84% to 92%). At a cut-off value of 1.5 ODI, the sensitivity was 61% (47% to 75%) and the specificity was 93% (89% to 97%). None of the potential sources of heterogeneity had a statistically significant effect on either sensitivity or specificity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: If we used the test at a cut-off value of 0.5 ODI in a population of 100 patients with a disease prevalence of 9% (overall median prevalence), two patients who have invasive aspergillosis would be missed (sensitivity 82%, 18% false negatives), and 17 patients would be treated unnecessarily or referred unnecessarily for further testing (specificity 81%, 19% false negatives). If we used the test at a cut-off value of 1.5 in the same population, that would mean that four invasive aspergillosis patients would be missed (sensitivity 61%, 39% false negatives), and six patients would be treated or referred for further testing unnecessarily (specificity 93%, 7% false negatives). These numbers should, however, be interpreted with caution because the results were very heterogeneous.
侵袭性曲霉病是免疫功能低下患者中最常见的危及生命的机会性侵袭性真菌病。侵袭性曲霉病检测对本就虚弱的患者而言,既不应侵入性过强,也不应造成过大负担。血清半乳甘露聚糖酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)似乎有潜力满足这两个要求。
获取血清半乳甘露聚糖检测对侵袭性曲霉病诊断准确性的汇总估计值。
我们使用医学主题词(MeSH)和文本词在MEDLINE、EMBASE和科学网中检索曲霉病和夹心ELISA。我们检查纳入研究和综述文章的参考文献列表以查找其他研究。检索于2014年2月进行。
我们纳入了横断面研究、病例对照设计以及连续系列患者,评估半乳甘露聚糖检测对中性粒细胞减少患者或中性粒细胞功能受损患者侵袭性曲霉病诊断的准确性。参考标准由欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织(EORTC)和真菌病研究组(MSG)给出的标准组成。
两位综述作者独立评估质量并提取数据。我们使用双变量方法进行荟萃分析。我们通过将潜在异质性来源作为协变量添加到模型中来研究异质性来源。
我们在综述中纳入了54项研究(荟萃分析中纳入50项),包含5660例患者,其中586例确诊或疑似侵袭性曲霉病。当使用光密度指数(ODI)0.5作为临界值时,检测的敏感性为82%(73%至90%),特异性为81%(72%至90%)。在ODI临界值为1.0时,敏感性为72%(65%至80%),特异性为88%(84%至92%)。在ODI临界值为1.5时,敏感性为61%(47%至75%),特异性为93%(89%至97%)。没有潜在异质性来源对敏感性或特异性有统计学显著影响。
如果在疾病患病率为9%(总体中位患病率)的100例患者群体中使用ODI临界值0.5进行检测,将有两名侵袭性曲霉病患者漏诊(敏感性82%,18%假阴性),17例患者将接受不必要的治疗或被不必要地转诊进行进一步检测(特异性81%,19%假阳性)。如果在同一群体中使用临界值1.5进行检测,这意味着将有四名侵袭性曲霉病患者漏诊(敏感性61%,39%假阴性),六名患者将接受不必要的治疗或被不必要地转诊进行进一步检测(特异性93%,7%假阳性)。然而,这些数字应谨慎解读,因为结果非常异质。