SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2025
Diagnostic accuracy of non-culture methods for the diagnosis of melioidosis: a systematic review and 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Next-Generation Sequencing in Melioidosis: Enhancing Diagnosis, Epidemiology and Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Development and international multicenter evaluation of a second-generation immunochromatography test for the serological diagnosis of melioidosis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Human infections caused by pathogenic Burkholderia: current clinical challenges and future perspectives.Infection · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe accuracy of laboratory diagnostic tests for the rapid diagnosis of melioidosis and their potential to replace culture tests as the gold standard remain controversial. This study aims to comprehensively evaluate the accuracy of all rapid diagnostic tests. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, SCIE, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases was conducted up to July 12, 2024, to include diagnostic tests for melioidosis with culture as the gold standard. The diagnostic accuracy of all testing methods was evaluated using a bivariate mixed-effects model and an ANOVA model.
resultsA total of 36 studies, comprising 21,289 tests, were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Using the bivariate mixed-effects model, the pooled sensitivity of indirect ELISA was 0.86 [95% CI (0.80-0.90)] and the pooled specificity was 0.85 [95% CI (0.80-0.89)]. For IHA with a positive threshold of 1:160, the pooled sensitivity was 0.60 [95% CI (0.46-0.72)] and the pooled specificity was 0.70 [95% CI (0.58-0.79)]. The pooled sensitivity of LFI targeting CPS was 0.52 [95% CI (0.33-0.70)] and the pooled specificity was 0.96 [95% CI (0.93-0.98)]. For IFA targeting polyclonal antibody, the pooled sensitivity was 0.60 [95% CI (0.44-0.75)] and the pooled specificity was 0.99 [95% CI (0.97-1.00)]. The pooled sensitivity of RT-PCR targeting T3SS was 0.72 [95% CI (0.41-0.91)] and the pooled specificity was 1.00 [95% CI (0.97-0.99)]. Other testing methods could not be meta-analyzed due to insufficient study numbers. The ANOVA model for network meta-analysis of the five most common testing methods showed that IFA targeting polyclonal antibody had the best advantage with a Superiority index of 6.86. In contrast, IHA with a positive threshold of 1:160 had the poorest advantage with a Superiority index of 0.19.
conclusionWhile rapid diagnostic methods for B. pseudomallei infection exist, bacterial culture remains the gold standard. In resource-limited settings, we recommend antigen-targeted sandwich ELISA for acute/early-stage melioidosis and IgG-based indirect ELISA for late acute or chronic cases. In high-resource settings, RT-PCR targeting the T3SS is recommended as an adjunct diagnostic modality. Strengthening training for clinicians and laboratory personnel is essential to ensure accurate application and interpretation.
trial registrationCRD42024569385.
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.