H Eguchi1, N Horita2, R Ushio3, I Kato4, Y Nakajima5, E Ota6, T Kaneko3. 1. Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Public Health, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan. 2. Department of Pulmonology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan. Electronic address: horitano@yokohama-cu.ac.jp. 3. Department of Pulmonology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan. 4. Department of Molecular Pathology, Yokohama City Graduate University School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan. 5. Department of Stem Cell and Immune Regulation, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan. 6. Global Health Nursing, Graduate School of Nursing Science, St Luke's International University, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess diagnostic test accuracy of antigenaemia assay for PCR-proven cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. METHODS: We systematically searched studies that provide data both on sensitivity and specificity of the CMV antigenaemia assay using the PCR as the reference standard. Adults, children, infants, individuals who were immunocompromised for any reason, symptomatic patients and asymptomatic individuals were all included. A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics model was used for diagnostic meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed by Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Protocol registration identification is CRD42016035892. RESULTS: We identified 75 eligible articles including 9058 CMV PCR-positive individuals and 22 232 PCR-negative individuals. The diagnostic odds ratio for positive antigenaemia was 30 (95% CI 24-38, I2 = 28%) and the area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 (95% CI 0.83-0.88). The summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 0.65 (95% CI 0.59-0.70) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.93-0.95), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio of 10.9 (95% CI 8.5-14.0) suggested that a positive result from the antigenaemia assay greatly increased the probability of PCR-proven CMV infection, but a negative likelihood ratio of 0.38 (95% CI 0.32-0.44) indicated that a negative result led to a small decrease in the probability of PCR-proven CMV infection. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses replicated these results. CONCLUSIONS: The antigenaemia assay overlooked 35% of PCR-proven CMV infections; hence, a negative result of an antigenaemia assay could not rule out a CMV infection.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess diagnostic test accuracy of antigenaemia assay for PCR-proven cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. METHODS: We systematically searched studies that provide data both on sensitivity and specificity of the CMV antigenaemia assay using the PCR as the reference standard. Adults, children, infants, individuals who were immunocompromised for any reason, symptomatic patients and asymptomatic individuals were all included. A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics model was used for diagnostic meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed by Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Protocol registration identification is CRD42016035892. RESULTS: We identified 75 eligible articles including 9058 CMV PCR-positive individuals and 22 232 PCR-negative individuals. The diagnostic odds ratio for positive antigenaemia was 30 (95% CI 24-38, I2 = 28%) and the area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 (95% CI 0.83-0.88). The summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 0.65 (95% CI 0.59-0.70) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.93-0.95), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio of 10.9 (95% CI 8.5-14.0) suggested that a positive result from the antigenaemia assay greatly increased the probability of PCR-proven CMV infection, but a negative likelihood ratio of 0.38 (95% CI 0.32-0.44) indicated that a negative result led to a small decrease in the probability of PCR-proven CMV infection. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses replicated these results. CONCLUSIONS: The antigenaemia assay overlooked 35% of PCR-proven CMV infections; hence, a negative result of an antigenaemia assay could not rule out a CMV infection.
Authors: Anderson Dik Wai Luk; Pamela P Lee; Huawei Mao; Koon-Wing Chan; Xiang Yuan Chen; Tong-Xin Chen; Jian Xin He; Nadia Kechout; Deepti Suri; Yin Bo Tao; Yong Bin Xu; Li Ping Jiang; Woei Kang Liew; Orathai Jirapongsananuruk; Tassalapa Daengsuwan; Anju Gupta; Surjit Singh; Amit Rawat; Amir Hamzah Abdul Latiff; Anselm Chi Wai Lee; Lynette P Shek; Thi Van Anh Nguyen; Tek Jee Chin; Yin Hsiu Chien; Zarina Abdul Latiff; Thi Minh Huong Le; Nguyen Ngoc Quynh Le; Bee Wah Lee; Qiang Li; Dinesh Raj; Mohamed-Ridha Barbouche; Meow-Keong Thong; Maria Carmen D Ang; Xiao Chuan Wang; Chen Guang Xu; Hai Guo Yu; Hsin-Hui Yu; Tsz Leung Lee; Felix Yat Sun Yau; Wilfred Hing-Sang Wong; Wenwei Tu; Wangling Yang; Patrick Chun Yin Chong; Marco Hok Kung Ho; Yu Lung Lau Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Lorenzo H Salamanca-Neita; Óscar Carvajal; Juan Pablo Carvajal; Maribel Forero-Castro; Nidya Alexandra Segura Journal: Trop Med Infect Dis Date: 2022-09-10
Authors: Ruixi Zhou; Xia Qiu; Junjie Ying; Yan Yue; Tiechao Ruan; Luting Yu; Qian Liu; Xuemei Sun; Shaopu Wang; Yi Qu; Xihong Li; Dezhi Mu Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-09-21
Authors: Laura Diaz; Joaquin Rosales; Fernando Rosso; Maria Rosales; Mayra Estacio; Eliana Manzi; Francisco Javier Jaramillo Journal: Hematol Transfus Cell Ther Date: 2019-02-22