Hiroaki Ogawa1, Georgios D Kitsios2, Mitsunaga Iwata1, Teruhiko Terasawa1. 1. Department of Emergency and General Internal Medicine, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Aichi, Japan. 2. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical role of sputum Gram stain (SGS) in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) diagnosis remains controversial. A 1996 meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of SGS reported heterogeneous results. To update the available evidence, we performed a systematic review and a Bayesian standard and latent-class model meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central by 23 August 2018 to identify studies reporting on the diagnostic accuracy, yield (percentage of patients with any pathogen[s] correctly identified by SGS), and clinical outcomes of SGS in adult patients with CAP. Two reviewers extracted the data. We quantitatively synthesized the diagnostic accuracy and yield, and descriptively analyzed other outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies with 4533 patients were included. The methodological and reporting quality of the included studies was limited. When good-quality sputum specimens were selected, SGS had a summary sensitivity of 0.69 (95% credible interval [CrI], .56-.80) and specificity of 0.91 (CrI, .83-.96) for detecting Streptococcus pneumoniae, and a sensitivity of 0.76 (CrI, .60-.87) and specificity of 0.97 (CrI, .91-.99) for Haemophilus influenzae. Adjusted analyses accounting for imperfect reference standards provided higher-specificity estimates than the unadjusted analyses. Bacterial pathogens were identified in 73% (CrI, 26%-96%) of good-quality specimens, and 36% (CrI, 22%-53%) of all specimens regardless of quality. Evidence on other bacteria was sparse. CONCLUSIONS: SGS was highly specific to diagnose S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae infections in patients with CAP. With good-quality specimens, SGS can provide clinically actionable information for pathogen-directed antibiotic therapies.
BACKGROUND: The clinical role of sputum Gram stain (SGS) in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) diagnosis remains controversial. A 1996 meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of SGS reported heterogeneous results. To update the available evidence, we performed a systematic review and a Bayesian standard and latent-class model meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central by 23 August 2018 to identify studies reporting on the diagnostic accuracy, yield (percentage of patients with any pathogen[s] correctly identified by SGS), and clinical outcomes of SGS in adult patients with CAP. Two reviewers extracted the data. We quantitatively synthesized the diagnostic accuracy and yield, and descriptively analyzed other outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies with 4533 patients were included. The methodological and reporting quality of the included studies was limited. When good-quality sputum specimens were selected, SGS had a summary sensitivity of 0.69 (95% credible interval [CrI], .56-.80) and specificity of 0.91 (CrI, .83-.96) for detecting Streptococcus pneumoniae, and a sensitivity of 0.76 (CrI, .60-.87) and specificity of 0.97 (CrI, .91-.99) for Haemophilus influenzae. Adjusted analyses accounting for imperfect reference standards provided higher-specificity estimates than the unadjusted analyses. Bacterial pathogens were identified in 73% (CrI, 26%-96%) of good-quality specimens, and 36% (CrI, 22%-53%) of all specimens regardless of quality. Evidence on other bacteria was sparse. CONCLUSIONS:SGS was highly specific to diagnose S. pneumoniae and H. influenzaeinfections in patients with CAP. With good-quality specimens, SGS can provide clinically actionable information for pathogen-directed antibiotic therapies.
Authors: Seema Jain; Wesley H Self; Richard G Wunderink; Sherene Fakhran; Robert Balk; Anna M Bramley; Carrie Reed; Carlos G Grijalva; Evan J Anderson; D Mark Courtney; James D Chappell; Chao Qi; Eric M Hart; Frank Carroll; Christopher Trabue; Helen K Donnelly; Derek J Williams; Yuwei Zhu; Sandra R Arnold; Krow Ampofo; Grant W Waterer; Min Levine; Stephen Lindstrom; Jonas M Winchell; Jacqueline M Katz; Dean Erdman; Eileen Schneider; Lauri A Hicks; Jonathan A McCullers; Andrew T Pavia; Kathryn M Edwards; Lyn Finelli Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew D F McInnes; David Moher; Brett D Thombs; Trevor A McGrath; Patrick M Bossuyt; Tammy Clifford; Jérémie F Cohen; Jonathan J Deeks; Constantine Gatsonis; Lotty Hooft; Harriet A Hunt; Christopher J Hyde; Daniël A Korevaar; Mariska M G Leeflang; Petra Macaskill; Johannes B Reitsma; Rachel Rodin; Anne W S Rutjes; Jean-Paul Salameh; Adrienne Stevens; Yemisi Takwoingi; Marcello Tonelli; Laura Weeks; Penny Whiting; Brian H Willis Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: M M van der Eerden; F Vlaspolder; C S de Graaff; T Groot; H M Jansen; W G Boersma Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Daniel M Musher; Ingrid L Roig; Guillermo Cazares; Charles E Stager; Nancy Logan; Hossam Safar Journal: J Infect Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 6.072
Authors: Daniel M Musher; Sirus S Jesudasen; Joseph W Barwatt; Daniel N Cohen; Benjamin J Moss; Maria C Rodriguez-Barradas Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Jan Kristian Damås; Lars Heggelund; Bjørn Waagsbø; Eva Margrethe Buset; Jørn-Åge Longva; Merete Bjerke; Birgitte Bakkene; Anne-Stine Ertesvåg; Hanne Holmen; Marko Nikodojevic; To Thy Tran; Andreas Christensen; Einar Nilsen Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 3.090