Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021
Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus to Other Tests of Latent Tuberculosis Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Oh Chi Eun, Ortiz-Brizuela Edgar, Bastos Mayara L, Menzies Dick
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We conducted a review to compare the sensitivity, specificity, reproducibility, and predictive ability of QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus) with that of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT; QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) and other latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) tests.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2013 through May 2020. We included studies comparing QFT-Plus with at least one other LTBI test. We estimated sensitivity from studies of patients with active tuberculosis, and specificity from studies of healthy individuals with low risk of LTBI. Three independent reviewers evaluated eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.
RESULTS: Compared with QFT-GIT, the sensitivity of QFT-Plus in patients with active TB was 1.3% higher (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.3% to 2.9%); in 2 studies of patients with very low probability of LTBI, the specificity was 0.9% lower (95% CI, -2.4% to 0.6%). These differences were not statistically significant. The agreement between QFT-Plus and QFT-GIT was high, with a pooled Cohen's kappa statistic of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88). The reproducibility of QFT-GIT and QFT-Plus was similarly poor. All participants in the studies to estimate sensitivity were aged ≥15 years, and only 6 were people living with human immunodeficiency virus. We found no studies to assess predictive ability.
CONCLUSIONS: QFT-Plus has diagnostic performance that is very similar to that of QFT-GIT. Further studies are needed to assess the sensitivity of QFT-Plus in immunocompromised patients and younger children before concluding if this new version offers advantages.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2013 through May 2020. We included studies comparing QFT-Plus with at least one other LTBI test. We estimated sensitivity from studies of patients with active tuberculosis, and specificity from studies of healthy individuals with low risk of LTBI. Three independent reviewers evaluated eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.
RESULTS: Compared with QFT-GIT, the sensitivity of QFT-Plus in patients with active TB was 1.3% higher (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.3% to 2.9%); in 2 studies of patients with very low probability of LTBI, the specificity was 0.9% lower (95% CI, -2.4% to 0.6%). These differences were not statistically significant. The agreement between QFT-Plus and QFT-GIT was high, with a pooled Cohen's kappa statistic of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88). The reproducibility of QFT-GIT and QFT-Plus was similarly poor. All participants in the studies to estimate sensitivity were aged ≥15 years, and only 6 were people living with human immunodeficiency virus. We found no studies to assess predictive ability.
CONCLUSIONS: QFT-Plus has diagnostic performance that is very similar to that of QFT-GIT. Further studies are needed to assess the sensitivity of QFT-Plus in immunocompromised patients and younger children before concluding if this new version offers advantages.