Evaluation of the Diagnostic Efficacy of Xpert CT/NG for and .

BACKGROUND

(CT) and (NG) are widely spread across the world. Asymptomatic or inconspicuous CT/NG infections are difficult to diagnose and treat. Traditional methods have the disadvantages of low detection rate, inaccurate results, and long detection time. However, Xpert CT/NG makes up for the aforementioned shortcomings and has research value and popularization significance.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched, and studies were screened using Xpert CT/NG for diagnosing CT/NG. QUADAS-2 was used to evaluate the quality of the eligible studies. Then, two groups of researchers independently extracted data from these studies. Meta-analyses of sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC) of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were conducted using Meta-DiSc 1.4. Finally, Deek's funnel plots were made using Stata 12.0 to evaluate publication bias.

RESULTS

14 studies were identified, and 46 fourfold tables were extracted in this meta-analysis. The pooled SEN, SPE, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC in diagnosing CT were 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-0.95), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), 97.17 (95% CI: 56.76-166.32), 0.07 (95% CI: 0.04-0.12), 1857.25 (95% CI: 943.78-3654.86), and 0.9960, respectively. The pooled SEN, SPE, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC in diagnosing NG were 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.96), 1.00 (95% CI: 1.00-1.00), 278.15 (95% CI: 152.41-507.63), 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06-0.12), 4290.70 (95% CI: 2161.78-8516.16), and 0.9980, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Xpert CT/NG had high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for CT and NG. However, more evidence is required to confirm that Xpert CT/NG might serve as the primary method for detecting CT and NG and even the gold standard for diagnosis in the future.