Zhenzhen Li1, Wenzhe Qin1, Lei Li1, Qin Wu1, Xuerong Chen2. 1. West China School of Medicine/West China Hospital, Sichuan University Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 2. Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: While the bronchoalveolar lavage enzyme-linked immunospot assay (BAL-ELISPOT) shows promise for diagnosing smear-negative tuberculosis, its accuracy remains controversial. We meta-analyzed the available evidence to obtain a clearer understanding of the diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: Studies of the diagnostic performance of ELI-SPOT on smear-negative tuberculosis were identified through systematic searches of the PubMed and EMBASE databases. Pooled data on sensitivity, specificity and other measures of accuracy were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess overall test performance. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Diagnostic performance was as follows: sensitivity, 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.93); specificity, 0.78 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.81); positive likelihood ratio, 4.2 (95% CI 2.42 to 7.28); negative likelihood ratio, 0.14 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.33); diagnostic odds ratio, 36.16 (95% CI 9.70 to 134.73); and area under the curve, 0.9605 (SEM 0.0247). CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that BAL-ELISPOT may perform better than blood-ELISPOT for both screening and confirming a diagnosis of smear-negative tuberculosis. Nevertheless, BAL-ELISPOT should be not used alone but rather in parallel with clinical manifestations and conventional tests to ensure reliable diagnosis.
PURPOSE: While the bronchoalveolar lavage enzyme-linked immunospot assay (BAL-ELISPOT) shows promise for diagnosing smear-negative tuberculosis, its accuracy remains controversial. We meta-analyzed the available evidence to obtain a clearer understanding of the diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: Studies of the diagnostic performance of ELI-SPOT on smear-negative tuberculosis were identified through systematic searches of the PubMed and EMBASE databases. Pooled data on sensitivity, specificity and other measures of accuracy were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess overall test performance. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Diagnostic performance was as follows: sensitivity, 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.93); specificity, 0.78 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.81); positive likelihood ratio, 4.2 (95% CI 2.42 to 7.28); negative likelihood ratio, 0.14 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.33); diagnostic odds ratio, 36.16 (95% CI 9.70 to 134.73); and area under the curve, 0.9605 (SEM 0.0247). CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that BAL-ELISPOT may perform better than blood-ELISPOT for both screening and confirming a diagnosis of smear-negative tuberculosis. Nevertheless, BAL-ELISPOT should be not used alone but rather in parallel with clinical manifestations and conventional tests to ensure reliable diagnosis.
Authors: Afina S Glas; Jeroen G Lijmer; Martin H Prins; Gouke J Bonsel; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Claudia Jafari; Steven Thijsen; Giovanni Sotgiu; Delia Goletti; José Antonio Domínguez Benítez; Monica Losi; Ralf Eberhardt; Detlef Kirsten; Barbara Kalsdorf; Aik Bossink; Irene Latorre; Giovanni B Migliori; Alan Strassburg; Susanne Winteroll; Ulf Greinert; Luca Richeldi; Martin Ernst; Christoph Lange Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2009-07-09 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: K Dheda; R N van Zyl-Smit; R Meldau; S Meldau; G Symons; H Khalfey; N Govender; V Rosu; L A Sechi; A Maredza; P Semple; A Whitelaw; H Wainwright; M Badri; R Dawson; E D Bateman; A Zumla Journal: Thorax Date: 2009-07-09 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Walter L Devillé; Frank Buntinx; Lex M Bouter; Victor M Montori; Henrica C W de Vet; Danielle A W M van der Windt; P Dick Bezemer Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2002-07-03 Impact factor: 4.615