Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29944682›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

Diagnostic accuracy of the loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for extrapulmonary tuberculosis: A meta-analysis.

Guocan Yu, Yanqin Shen, Fangming Zhong, Bo Ye, Jun Yang, Gang Chen

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Application ofInfection and drug resistance · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Guocan YuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Hangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Yanqin ShenDepartment of Tuberculosis, Hangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Fangming ZhongDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Hangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Bo YeDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Hangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Jun YangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Hangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Gang ChenDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Hangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7188-083X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLoop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) is used to detect pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB); however, the diagnostic accuracy of the LAMP assay for extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) is unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of LAMP in the detection of EPTB.

methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang database for studies published before Sep 16, 2017. We reviewed studies and compared the performance of LAMP with that of a composite reference standard (CRS) and culture for clinically suspected EPTB. We used a bivariate random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and used meta-regression and subgroup analysis to analyze sources of heterogeneity.

resultsFourteen articles including 24 independent studies (16 compared LAMP to CRS, 8 to culture) of EPTB were identified. LAMP showed a pooled sensitivity of 77% (95% confidence interval (CI) 68-85), specificity of 99% (95% CI 96-100), and area under SROC curves (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97) against CRS. It showed a pooled sensitivity of 93% (95% CI 88-96), specificity of 77% (95% CI 64-86), and AUC of 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96) against culture. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of MPB64 LAMP were 86% (95% CI 86-86), 100% (95% CI 100-100), and 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.98), respectively, and those of IS6110 LAMP were 75% (95% CI 64-84), 99% (95% CI 90-100), and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93), respectively, compared with CRS.

conclusionsThese results suggest good diagnostic efficacy of LAMP in the detection of EPTB. Additionally, the diagnostic efficacy of MPB64 LAMP was superior to that of IS6110 LAMP.

Indexed as

HumansNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesPublication BiasReference StandardsSensitivity and SpecificityTuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID29944682
PMCPMC6019099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.