SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2025
Lateral-flow device for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical research advances in pulmonary infections in 2025: a narrative review of multipathogen assessment, precision diagnosis, and integrated management.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Epidemiological shifts and advances in research on early diagnosis of invasive fungal infection in critically ill patients.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis (IA) can significantly enhance patient survival rates; however, accurately diagnosing IA remains a formidable challenge. Lateral flow device (LFD), as a non-invasive detection method, have been extensively investigated in numerous clinical studies. The objective of this study was to elucidate the diagnostic accuracy of LFD in detecting IA through a meta-analysis.
methodsThe PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science database were searched to obtain clinical studies on the diagnosis of IA by LFD. A random-effects meta-analysis with a bivariate hierarchical model was used, the estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to present pooled sensitivity, specificity, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC).
resultsTwenty-five cohort or case-control studies were included. The pooled sensitivity of LFD in the diagnosis of IA was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.57-0.75), specificity was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93), diagnostic odds ratio was 15.70 (95% CI: 9.69-25.44), the area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.93). Subgroup analysis showed that the sensitivity of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid specimen was higher than serum specimen (0.72, 95% CI: 0.67-0.78 vs. 0.49, 95% CI: 0.41-0.56), bronchoalveolar lavage fluid specimens also have higher diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.89).
conclusionsLFD is an effective technique for the detection of IA infection, but attention should be paid to the influence of specimen source on the accuracy of this technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.