International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
Rapid tests for detecting group B streptococcus colonization in pregnant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Páez-Castellanos Edgar, Burgos-Cárdenas Alvaro Javier, Gaitán-Duarte Hernando, Rubio-Romero Jorge Andres, Vargas-Rodriguez Duvan Daniel, Sanabria-Mora Fabian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Maternal colonization with group B Streptococcus is common and the leading cause of neonatal sepsis. Rapid tests can be an alternative for screening; however, their diagnostic accuracy is variable when used with non-enriched samples.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of rapid tests based on nucleic acid amplification techniques (NAAT) without prior enrichment for detecting group B Streptococcus colonization in pregnant women.
SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic searches of databases (Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS) from inception until February 2025, ongoing studies and gray literature.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies in which participants were recruited prospectively, consecutively, or randomly; measurement and data collection had to be prospective. We excluded case-control studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. For the meta-analysis, we used the bivariate model by estimating a summary sensitivity and specificity. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to diagnostic test accuracy to compile the summary of findings tables.
MAIN RESULTS: A total of 52 studies (24 653 participants) met the inclusion criteria; the median sample size was 299, and the median colonization prevalence was 21.4%. For qPCR-based rapid tests, the sensitivity was 90% (95% CI: 88%-92%), and the specificity was 96% (95% CI: 95%-97%). For the LAMP-based test, the sensitivity was 92% (95% CI: 84%-97%), and the specificity was 96% (95% CI: 94%-98%). When exploring study entry status, sample source, and test processing in the delivery room as sources of heterogeneity, we found no statistically significant differences between the subgroups analyzed (P = 0.19, P = 0.43, and P = 0.44). We found no evidence of publication bias when analyzing the asymmetry in the funnel plot.
CONCLUSIONS: Rapid qPCR-based tests may have acceptable sensitivity (low-certainty evidence), and they probably have acceptable specificity (moderate-certainty evidence). For the LAMP-based tests, the evidence is very uncertain regarding the acceptability of sensitivity (very low-certainty evidence), but specificity is probably acceptable (moderate-certainty evidence) for detecting GBS colonization in pregnant women. Applicability is limited in intrapartum settings due to sample processing and in low- and middle-income settings.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42024536503.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of rapid tests based on nucleic acid amplification techniques (NAAT) without prior enrichment for detecting group B Streptococcus colonization in pregnant women.
SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic searches of databases (Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS) from inception until February 2025, ongoing studies and gray literature.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies in which participants were recruited prospectively, consecutively, or randomly; measurement and data collection had to be prospective. We excluded case-control studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. For the meta-analysis, we used the bivariate model by estimating a summary sensitivity and specificity. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to diagnostic test accuracy to compile the summary of findings tables.
MAIN RESULTS: A total of 52 studies (24 653 participants) met the inclusion criteria; the median sample size was 299, and the median colonization prevalence was 21.4%. For qPCR-based rapid tests, the sensitivity was 90% (95% CI: 88%-92%), and the specificity was 96% (95% CI: 95%-97%). For the LAMP-based test, the sensitivity was 92% (95% CI: 84%-97%), and the specificity was 96% (95% CI: 94%-98%). When exploring study entry status, sample source, and test processing in the delivery room as sources of heterogeneity, we found no statistically significant differences between the subgroups analyzed (P = 0.19, P = 0.43, and P = 0.44). We found no evidence of publication bias when analyzing the asymmetry in the funnel plot.
CONCLUSIONS: Rapid qPCR-based tests may have acceptable sensitivity (low-certainty evidence), and they probably have acceptable specificity (moderate-certainty evidence). For the LAMP-based tests, the evidence is very uncertain regarding the acceptability of sensitivity (very low-certainty evidence), but specificity is probably acceptable (moderate-certainty evidence) for detecting GBS colonization in pregnant women. Applicability is limited in intrapartum settings due to sample processing and in low- and middle-income settings.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42024536503.