Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19144797›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical microbiology2009

Diagnostic accuracy of in-house PCR for pulmonary tuberculosis in smear-positive patients: meta-analysis and metaregression.

S Greco, M Rulli, E Girardi, C Piersimoni, C Saltini

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Audit and improve! Evaluation of a real-time probe-based PCR assay with internal control for the direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

S GrecoDipartimento di Malattie Polmonari, Azienda Ospedaliera San Camillo-Forlanini, Rome, Italy. stgreco@scamilloforlanini.rm.it
M Rulli
E Girardi
C Piersimoni
C Saltini

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In-house PCR (hPCR) could speed differential diagnosis between tuberculosis (TB) and nontuberculous mycobacterial disease in patients with positive smears and pulmonary infiltrates, but its reported accuracy fluctuates across studies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of hPCR sensitivity and specificity for smear-positive TB diagnosis, using culture as the reference standard. After searching English language studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE, we estimated cumulative accuracy by means of summary receiver operating characteristic analysis. The possible influence of hPCR procedures and study methodological features on accuracy was explored by univariate metaregression, followed by multivariate adjustment of items selected as significant. Thirty-five articles (1991 to 2006) met the inclusion criteria. The pooled estimates of the diagnostic odds ratio, sensitivity, and specificity (random-effect model) were, respectively, 60 (confidence interval [CI], 29 to 123), 0.96 (CI, 0.95 to 0.97), and 0.81 (CI, 0.78 to 0.84), but significant variations (mainly in specificity) limit their clinical applicability. The quality of the reference test, the detection method, and real-time PCR use explained some of the observed heterogeneity. Probably due to the limited study power of our meta-analysis and to the wide differences in both laboratory techniques and methodological quality, only real-time PCR also displayed a positive impact on accuracy in the multivariate model. Currently, hPCR can be confidently used to exclude TB in smear-positive patients, but its low specificity could lead to erroneous initiation of therapy, isolation, and contact investigation. As the inclusion of samples from treated patients could have artificially reduced specificity, future studies should report mycobacterial-culture results for each TB and non-TB sample analyzed.

Indexed as

HumansPolymerase Chain ReactionPredictive Value of TestsSensitivity and SpecificityTuberculosis, Pulmonary

Identifiers

PMID19144797
PMCPMC2650956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.