Southern medical journal · 2017
Sensitivity for Diagnosing Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis from Manufacturers is 10% Higher than Reported in Peer-Reviewed Publications.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Vachhani Raj, Patel Toral, Centor Robert M, Estrada Carlos A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Meta-analyses based on peer-reviewed publications report a sensitivity of approximately 85% for rapid antigen streptococcus tests to diagnose group A streptococcal (GAS) pharyngitis. Because these meta-analyses excluded package inserts, we examined the test characteristics of rapid antigen streptococcal tests and molecular methods that manufacturers report in their package inserts.
METHODS: We included tests available in the US market (Food and Drug Administration, period searched 1993-2015) and used package insert data to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity. To examine quality, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. We excluded 26 tests having different trade names but identical methods and data.
RESULTS: The study design was prospective in 41.7% (10 of 24). The pooled sensitivity of the most commonly used method, lateral flow/immunochromatographic, was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94-96) and the pooled specificity was 98% (96-98); 7108 patients. The pooled sensitivity of the polymerase chain reaction or molecular methods was 98% (95% CI 96-98) and the pooled specificity was 96% (95% CI 95-97); 5685 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Package inserts include sponsored studies that overestimate the sensitivity of rapid tests to diagnose GAS pharyngitis by approximately 10%. Physicians should understand that package inserts overestimate diagnostic test utility; a negative test cannot be used to exclude GAS pharyngitis.
METHODS: We included tests available in the US market (Food and Drug Administration, period searched 1993-2015) and used package insert data to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity. To examine quality, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. We excluded 26 tests having different trade names but identical methods and data.
RESULTS: The study design was prospective in 41.7% (10 of 24). The pooled sensitivity of the most commonly used method, lateral flow/immunochromatographic, was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94-96) and the pooled specificity was 98% (96-98); 7108 patients. The pooled sensitivity of the polymerase chain reaction or molecular methods was 98% (95% CI 96-98) and the pooled specificity was 96% (95% CI 95-97); 5685 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Package inserts include sponsored studies that overestimate the sensitivity of rapid tests to diagnose GAS pharyngitis by approximately 10%. Physicians should understand that package inserts overestimate diagnostic test utility; a negative test cannot be used to exclude GAS pharyngitis.