Pammi Mohan, Flores Angela, Versalovic James, Leeflang Mariska Mg
Section of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, 6621, Fannin, MC.WT 6-104, Houston, Texas, USA, 77030.
Pediatrix Medical Group - NW Houston Practice, 9250 Pinecroft St., The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 77380.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 25;2(2):CD011926. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011926.pub2.
Microbial cultures for diagnosis of neonatal sepsis have low sensitivity and reporting delay. Advances in molecular microbiology have fostered new molecular assays that are rapid and may improve neonatal outcomes.
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of various molecular methods for the diagnosis of culture-positive bacterial and fungal sepsis in neonates and to explore heterogeneity among studies by analyzing subgroups classified by gestational age and type of sepsis onset and compare molecular tests with one another.
We performed the systematic review as recommended by the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. On 19 January 2016, we searched electronic bibliographic databases (the Cochrane Library, PubMed (from 1966), Embase (from 1982), and CINAHL (from 1982)), conference proceedings of the Pediatric Academic Societies annual conference (from 1990), clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry, and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Platform (ICTRP) Search portal), and Science Citation Index. We contacted experts in the field for studies.
We included studies that were prospective or retrospective, cohort or cross-sectional design, which evaluated molecular assays (index test) in neonates with suspected sepsis (participants) in comparison with microbial cultures (reference standard).
Two review authors independently assessed the methodologic quality of the studies and extracted data. We performed meta-analyses using the bivariate and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models and entered data into Review Manager 5.
Thirty-five studies were eligible for inclusion and the summary estimate of sensitivity was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.95) and of specificity was 0.93 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.96) (moderate quality evidence). We explored heterogeneity by subgroup analyses of type of test, gestational age, type of sepsis onset, and prevalence of sepsis and we did not find sufficient explanations for the heterogeneity (moderate to very low quality evidence). Sensitivity analyses by including studies that analyzed blood samples and by good methodology revealed similar results (moderate quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Molecular assays have the advantage of producing rapid results and may perform well as 'add-on' tests.
用于诊断新生儿败血症的微生物培养法敏感性低且报告延迟。分子微生物学的进展催生了新的分子检测方法,这些方法快速且可能改善新生儿预后。
评估各种分子方法诊断新生儿培养阳性细菌性和真菌性败血症的诊断准确性,并通过分析按胎龄和败血症发病类型分类的亚组来探讨研究间的异质性,同时比较分子检测方法之间的差异。
我们按照Cochrane诊断试验准确性工作组的建议进行了系统评价。2016年1月19日,我们检索了电子文献数据库(Cochrane图书馆、PubMed(1966年起)、Embase(1982年起)和CINAHL(1982年起))、儿科学术协会年会会议论文集(1990年起)、临床试验注册库(ClinicalTrials.gov、国际标准随机对照试验编号(ISRCTN)注册库和世界卫生组织(WHO)国际临床试验平台(ICTRP)搜索门户)以及科学引文索引。我们联系了该领域的专家以获取研究。
我们纳入了前瞻性或回顾性、队列或横断面设计的研究,这些研究评估了疑似败血症新生儿(参与者)中的分子检测方法(索引检测)并与微生物培养法(参考标准)进行比较。
两位综述作者独立评估研究的方法学质量并提取数据。我们使用双变量和分层汇总接受者操作特征(HSROC)模型进行荟萃分析,并将数据录入Review Manager 5。
35项研究符合纳入标准,敏感性的汇总估计值为0.90(95%置信区间(CI)0.82至0.95),特异性为0.93(95%CI 0.89至0.96)(中等质量证据)。我们通过对检测类型、胎龄、败血症发病类型和败血症患病率进行亚组分析来探讨异质性,但未找到异质性的充分解释(中等至极低质量证据)。通过纳入分析血样的研究和采用良好方法进行的敏感性分析得出了相似结果(中等质量证据)。
分子检测方法具有快速出结果的优势,作为“附加”检测可能表现良好。