The Journal of infectious diseases · 2018
The Relationship Between Blood Sample Volume and Diagnostic Sensitivity of Blood Culture for Typhoid and Paratyphoid Fever: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Antillon Marina, Saad Neil J, Baker Stephen, Pollard Andrew J, Pitzer Virginia E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Blood culture is the standard diagnostic method for typhoid and paratyphoid (enteric) fever in surveillance studies and clinical trials, but sensitivity is widely acknowledged to be suboptimal. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine sources of heterogeneity across studies and quantified the effect of blood volume.
METHODS: We searched the literature to identify all studies that performed blood culture alongside bone marrow culture (a gold standard) to detect cases of enteric fever. We performed a meta-regression analysis to quantify the relationship between blood sample volume and diagnostic sensitivity. Furthermore, we evaluated the impact of patient age, antimicrobial use, and symptom duration on sensitivity.
RESULTS: We estimated blood culture diagnostic sensitivity was 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.64) with significant between-study heterogeneity (I2, 76% [95% CI, 68%-82%]; P < .01). Sensitivity ranged from 0.51 (95% CI, 0.44-0.57) for a 2-mL blood specimen to 0.65 (95% CI, 0.58-0.70) for a 10-mL blood specimen, indicative of a relationship between specimen volume and sensitivity. Subgroup analysis showed significant heterogeneity by patient age and a weak trend towards higher sensitivity among more recent studies. Sensitivity was 34% lower (95% CI, 4%-54%) among patients with prior antimicrobial use and 31% lower after the first week of symptoms (95% CI, 19%-41%). There was no evidence of confounding by patient age, antimicrobial use, symptom duration, or study date on the relationship between specimen volume and sensitivity.
CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between the blood sample volume and culture sensitivity should be accounted for in incidence and next-generation diagnostic studies.
METHODS: We searched the literature to identify all studies that performed blood culture alongside bone marrow culture (a gold standard) to detect cases of enteric fever. We performed a meta-regression analysis to quantify the relationship between blood sample volume and diagnostic sensitivity. Furthermore, we evaluated the impact of patient age, antimicrobial use, and symptom duration on sensitivity.
RESULTS: We estimated blood culture diagnostic sensitivity was 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.64) with significant between-study heterogeneity (I2, 76% [95% CI, 68%-82%]; P < .01). Sensitivity ranged from 0.51 (95% CI, 0.44-0.57) for a 2-mL blood specimen to 0.65 (95% CI, 0.58-0.70) for a 10-mL blood specimen, indicative of a relationship between specimen volume and sensitivity. Subgroup analysis showed significant heterogeneity by patient age and a weak trend towards higher sensitivity among more recent studies. Sensitivity was 34% lower (95% CI, 4%-54%) among patients with prior antimicrobial use and 31% lower after the first week of symptoms (95% CI, 19%-41%). There was no evidence of confounding by patient age, antimicrobial use, symptom duration, or study date on the relationship between specimen volume and sensitivity.
CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between the blood sample volume and culture sensitivity should be accounted for in incidence and next-generation diagnostic studies.