Altez-Fernandez Carlos, Ortiz Victor, Mirzazadeh Majid, Zegarra Luis, Seas Carlos, Ugarte-Gil Cesar
Facultad de Medicina Alberto Hurtado, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Av. Honorio Delgado 430, Urb. Ingeniería, S.M, P, Lima, Perú.
Department of Urology, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, NC, USA.
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Jun 5;17(1):390. doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2476-8.
Genitourinary tuberculosis is the third most common form of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Diagnosis is difficult because of unspecific clinical manifestations and low accuracy of conventional tests. Unfortunately, the delayed diagnosis impacts the urinary tract severely. Nucleic acid amplification tests yield fast results, and among these, new technologies can also detect drug resistance. There is lack of consensus regarding the use of these tests in genitourinary tuberculosis; we therefore aimed to assess the accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests in the diagnosis of genitourinary tuberculosis and to evaluate the heterogeneity between studies.
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of research articles comparing the accuracy of a reference standard and a nucleic acid amplification test for diagnosis of urinary tract tuberculosis. We searched Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, LILACS, Cochrane Library, and Scopus for articles published between Jan 1, 1990, and Apr 14, 2016. Two investigators identified eligible articles and extracted data for individual study sites. We analyzed data in groups with the same index test. Then, we generated pooled summary estimates (95% CIs) for sensitivity and specificity by use of random-effects meta-analysis when studies were not heterogeneous.
We identified eleven relevant studies from ten articles, giving information on PCR, LCR and Xpert MTB/RIF tests. All PCR studies were "in-house" tests, with different gene targets and had several quality concerns therefore we did not proceed with a pooled analysis. Only one study used LCR. Xpert studies were of good quality and not heterogeneous, pooled sensitivity was 0·87 (0·66-0·96) and specificity was 0·91 (0·84-0·95).
PCR studies were highly heterogeneous. Among Xpert MTB/RIF studies, specificity was favorable with an acceptable confidence interval, however new studies can update meta-analysis and get more precise estimates. Further high-quality studies are urgently needed to improve diagnosis of genitourinary tuberculosis.
PROSPERO CRD42016039020.
泌尿生殖系统结核是肺外结核的第三常见形式。由于临床表现不具特异性且传统检测准确性较低,诊断较为困难。不幸的是,诊断延迟会对泌尿系统造成严重影响。核酸扩增检测结果快速,其中的新技术还能检测耐药性。对于这些检测在泌尿生殖系统结核中的应用,目前尚无共识;因此,我们旨在评估核酸扩增检测在泌尿生殖系统结核诊断中的准确性,并评估各研究之间的异质性。
我们对比较参考标准和核酸扩增检测在诊断尿路结核准确性的研究文章进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。我们检索了1990年1月1日至2016年4月14日期间发表在Medline、EMBASE、科学网、拉丁美洲和加勒比地区卫生科学数据库、考克兰图书馆和Scopus上的文章。两名研究人员确定了符合条件的文章,并提取了各个研究地点的数据。我们对使用相同指标检测的组进行了数据分析。然后,当研究不存在异质性时,我们通过随机效应荟萃分析生成了敏感性和特异性的合并汇总估计值(95%置信区间)。
我们从十篇文章中确定了十一项相关研究,提供了有关聚合酶链反应(PCR)、连接酶链反应(LCR)和Xpert MTB/RIF检测的信息。所有PCR研究均为“内部”检测,基因靶点不同,且存在多个质量问题,因此我们未进行汇总分析。仅有一项研究使用了LCR。Xpert研究质量良好且不存在异质性,合并敏感性为0.87(0.66 - 0.96),特异性为0.91(0.84 - 0.95)。
PCR研究的异质性很高。在Xpert MTB/RIF研究中,特异性良好,置信区间可接受,然而新的研究可以更新荟萃分析并获得更精确的估计值。迫切需要进一步开展高质量研究以改善泌尿生殖系统结核的诊断。
国际前瞻性系统评价注册库CRD42016039020。