Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, Paris, France.
Academic Children Hospital Queen Fabiola, Université libre de Bruxelles, Department of Paediatrics, Brussels, Belgium; Molecular Bacteriology Laboratory, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Dec;27(12):1736-1745. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.04.021. Epub 2021 May 6.
Acute pharyngitis is one of the most common conditions in outpatient settings and an important source of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) offer diagnosis of group A streptococcus at the point of care but have limited sensitivity. Rapid nucleic acid tests (RNATs) are now available; a systematic review of their accuracy is lacking.
To evaluate the accuracy of RNATs in patients with pharyngitis; to explore test-level and study-level factors that could explain variability in accuracy; and to compare the accuracy of RNATs with that of RADTs.
MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science (1990-2020).
Cross-sectional studies and randomized trials.
Patients with pharyngitis.
INDEX TEST/S AND REFERENCE STANDARDS: RNAT commercial kits compared with throat culture.
We assessed risk of bias and applicability using QUADAS-2. We performed meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity using the bivariate random-effects model. Variability was explored by subgroup analyses and meta-regression.
We included 38 studies (46 test evaluations; 17 411 test results). RNATs were most often performed in a laboratory. The overall methodological quality of primary studies was uncertain because of incomplete reporting. RNATs had a summary sensitivity of 97.5% (95% CI 96.2%-98.3%) and a summary specificity of 95.1% (95% CI 93.6%-96.3%). There was low variability in estimates across studies. Variability in sensitivity and specificity was partially explained by test type (p < 0.05 for both). Sensitivity analyses limited to studies with low risk of bias showed robust accuracy estimates. RNATs were more sensitive than RADTs (13 studies; 96.8% versus 82.3%, p 0.004); there was no difference in specificity (p 0.92).
The high diagnostic accuracy of RNATs may allow their use as stand-alone tests to diagnose group A streptococcus pharyngitis. Based on direct comparisons, RNATs have greater sensitivity than RADTs and equal specificity. Further studies should evaluate RNATs in point-of-care settings.
急性咽炎是门诊最常见的疾病之一,也是不合理使用抗生素的重要原因。快速抗原检测试验(RADTs)可在现场即时诊断 A 组链球菌,但敏感性有限。现在已有快速核酸检测试验(RNATs);但缺乏对其准确性的系统评价。
评估咽峡炎患者中 RNAT 的准确性;探讨可能解释准确性差异的检测水平和研究水平因素;并比较 RNAT 与 RADTs 的准确性。
MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science(1990-2020 年)。
横断面研究和随机试验。
患有咽炎的患者。
与咽拭子培养相比,使用 RNAT 商业试剂盒。
我们使用 QUADAS-2 评估偏倚风险和适用性。使用双变量随机效应模型对敏感性和特异性进行荟萃分析。通过亚组分析和荟萃回归探索变异性。
我们纳入了 38 项研究(46 项检测评估;17411 项检测结果)。RNAT 最常在实验室进行。由于报告不完整,主要研究的方法学质量总体上不确定。RNAT 的综合敏感性为 97.5%(95%CI 96.2%-98.3%),综合特异性为 95.1%(95%CI 93.6%-96.3%)。研究间的估计值变化很小。敏感性和特异性的变化部分由检测类型解释(均 P<0.05)。敏感性分析仅限于低偏倚风险的研究,结果显示出稳健的准确性估计值。与 RADTs 相比,RNATs 更敏感(13 项研究;96.8%比 82.3%,P<0.004);特异性无差异(P=0.92)。
RNAT 的高诊断准确性可能使其可作为单独的检测方法来诊断 A 组链球菌性咽炎。基于直接比较,RNAT 的敏感性高于 RADTs,特异性相同。应进一步研究在现场即时检测环境下使用 RNATs。