Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23678060›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical microbiology2013

Systematic review and meta-analysis of a urine-based pneumococcal antigen test for diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae.

Alison Sinclair, Xuanqian Xie, Marty Teltscher, Nandini Dendukuri

Abstract readEvaluation StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Clinically Adjudicated Reference Standards for Evaluation of Infectious Diseases Diagnostics.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023
    Article
  20. Observational

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Alison SinclairTechnology Assessment Unit of the McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Xuanqian Xie
Marty Teltscher
Nandini Dendukuri

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Standard culture methods for diagnosis of Streptococcus pneumoniae pneumonia take at least 24 h. The BinaxNOW urine-based test for S. pneumoniae (BinaxNOW-SP) takes only 15 min to conduct, potentially enabling earlier diagnosis and targeted treatment. This study was conducted to assess whether the use of BinaxNOW-SP at the time of hospital admission would provide adequate sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adult patients. We searched PubMed, EMBASE/OVID, Cochrane Collaboration, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, INAHTA, and CADTH for diagnostic or etiologic studies of hospitalized predominately adult patients with clinically defined CAP that reported the diagnostic performance of BinaxNOW-SP versus cultures. Two authors independently extracted study details and diagnostic two-by-two tables. We found that 27 studies met our inclusion criteria, and three different reference standards were used between them. A bivariate meta-analysis of 12 studies using a composite of culture tests as the reference standard estimated the sensitivity of BinaxNOW-SP as 68.5% (95% credibility interval [CrI], 62.6% to 74.2%) and specificity as 84.2% (95% CrI, 77.5% to 89.3%). A meta-analysis of all 27 studies, adjusting for the imperfect and variable nature of the reference standard, gave a higher sensitivity of 74.0% (CrI, 66.6% to 82·3%) and specificity of 97.2% (CrI, 92.7% to 99.8%). The analysis showed substantial heterogeneity across studies, which did not decrease with adjustment for covariates. We concluded that the higher pooled sensitivity (compared to culture) and high specificity of BinaxNOW-SP suggest it would be a useful addition to the diagnostic workup for community-acquired pneumonia. More research is needed regarding the impact of BinaxNOW-SP on clinical practice.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntigens, BacterialChromatography, AffinityClinical Laboratory TechniquesCommunity-Acquired InfectionsDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPneumonia, PneumococcalSensitivity and SpecificityStreptococcus pneumoniaeAntigens, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID23678060
PMCPMC3697702

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.