Kishan P Patel1, John P Gallagher1, Parker M Korbitz2, Cynthia Schmidt3, Thammasin Ingviya4,5, Tomoki Sempokuya6, Wuttiporn Manatsathit6. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 3. McGoogan Library of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. 4. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand. 5. Medical Data Center for Research and Innovations, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand. 6. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Abstract
Background: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a bacterial infection associated with a high mortality rate in cirrhotic patients. The gold standard for the detection of SBP is a manual cell count from ascitic fluid; however, alternative screening methods are under investigation. In particular, leukocyte esterase reagent strips (LERS) has been studied as an alternative method to detect SBP with a low cost and instant turnaround time. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the performance of LERS in the detection of SBP. Methods: A literature search was performed for studies evaluating LERS for the detection of SBP on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and clinical trial registries. Summary sensitivity, specificity, log diagnostic odds ratio (LDOR), and the area under the summary receiver operating curve (AUC) were calculated according to the respective manufacturer. Results: In total, 31 studies were evaluated. The summary sensitivity of Aution Sticks, Combur, Multistix, Periscreen reagent strips was 0.962 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.926, 0.998), 0.892 (95% CI 0.846, 0.938), 0.806 (95% CI 0.738, 0.874), and 0.939 (95% CI 0.900, 0.979), respectively. The summary specificity of Aution Sticks, Combur, Multistix, and Periscreen reagent strips was 0.940 (95% CI 0.904, 0.976), 0.922 (95% CI 0.874, 0.970), 0.974 (95% CI 0.962, 0.985), and 0.672 (95% CI 0.381, 0.963), respectively. Conclusion: LERS appears to have a notable overall performance for the detection of SBP. LERS appeared to be an acceptable alternative to diagnose SBP in facilities without ability to perform cell count. However, there were significant differences in performance between each manufacturer.
Background: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a bacterial infection associated with a high mortality rate in cirrhotic patients. The gold standard for the detection of SBP is a manual cell count from ascitic fluid; however, alternative screening methods are under investigation. In particular, leukocyte esterase reagent strips (LERS) has been studied as an alternative method to detect SBP with a low cost and instant turnaround time. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the performance of LERS in the detection of SBP. Methods: A literature search was performed for studies evaluating LERS for the detection of SBP on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and clinical trial registries. Summary sensitivity, specificity, log diagnostic odds ratio (LDOR), and the area under the summary receiver operating curve (AUC) were calculated according to the respective manufacturer. Results: In total, 31 studies were evaluated. The summary sensitivity of Aution Sticks, Combur, Multistix, Periscreen reagent strips was 0.962 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.926, 0.998), 0.892 (95% CI 0.846, 0.938), 0.806 (95% CI 0.738, 0.874), and 0.939 (95% CI 0.900, 0.979), respectively. The summary specificity of Aution Sticks, Combur, Multistix, and Periscreen reagent strips was 0.940 (95% CI 0.904, 0.976), 0.922 (95% CI 0.874, 0.970), 0.974 (95% CI 0.962, 0.985), and 0.672 (95% CI 0.381, 0.963), respectively. Conclusion: LERS appears to have a notable overall performance for the detection of SBP. LERS appeared to be an acceptable alternative to diagnose SBP in facilities without ability to perform cell count. However, there were significant differences in performance between each manufacturer.
Authors: Johannes B Reitsma; Afina S Glas; Anne W S Rutjes; Rob J P M Scholten; Patrick M Bossuyt; Aeilko H Zwinderman Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Lucia Libanez Bessa Campelo Braga; Marcellus Henrique Loiola Ponte de Souza; Alzira Maria de Castro Barbosa; Felipe Magalhães Furtado; Paula Andréa Maia Campelo; Antônio Haroldo de Araújo Filho Journal: Sao Paulo Med J Date: 2006-05-04 Impact factor: 1.044
Authors: Félix I Téllez-Ávila; Norberto C Chávez-Tapia; Ada M Franco-Guzmán; Misael Uribe; Florencia Vargas-Vorackova Journal: Ann Hepatol Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.400