MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4411214689 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd016071.pub2

Parallel use of low-complexity automated nucleic acid amplification tests on respiratory and stool samples with or without lateral flow lipoarabinomannan assays to detect pulmonary tuberculosis disease in children

2025· review· en· W4411214689 sur OpenAlexaff
Laura Olbrich, Bada Yang, Hayley Poore, Alia Razid, Brittney Sweetser, Mathias Damkjær, Alexander Kay, Johanna Åhsberg, Ruvandhi R. Nathavitharana, Ian Schiller, Nandini Dendukuri, Andreas Lundh, Maunank Shah, Stephanie Bjerrum, Devan Jaganath

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Établissements canadiensMcGill University Health Centre
Organismes subventionnairesFogarty International Center
Mots-clésLipoarabinomannanNucleic acidRespiratory systemMedicineNucleic Acid Amplification TestsPulmonary diseaseDiseasePulmonary tuberculosisTuberculosisMycobacterium tuberculosisMicrobiologyVirologyBiologyPathologyInternal medicineBiochemistry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Low-complexity automated nucleic acid amplification tests (LC-aNAATs) are molecular assays widely used to diagnose tuberculosis disease in children. The lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan assay (LF-LAM) is recommended for use amongst children with HIV. Previous systematic reviews have assessed the diagnostic accuracy of LC-aNAATs and LF-LAM separately in children, but in clinical practice the tests may be used concurrently, i.e. in 'parallel'. OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the parallel use of LC-aNAAT on respiratory and stool specimens in children, and with LF-LAM on urine amongst children with HIV, versus each assay alone for detecting pulmonary tuberculosis disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index-Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, Biosis Previews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, WHO (World Health Organization) Global Index Medicus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry up to 3 November 2023. There was a WHO public call for data on the accuracy of LC-aNAAT and LF-LAM for children until December 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that enroled children under 10 years of age with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis, and provided data to assess the accuracy of parallel testing and at least one of the component tests, against a microbiological reference standard (MRS) based on culture or composite reference standard (CRS) that included clinical diagnosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using a standardised form and assessed study quality using QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C tools. We performed bivariate random-effects meta-analysis using a Bayesian approach to estimate sensitivity and specificity and absolute differences between index tests. Diagnostic accuracy estimates were calculated primarily against the MRS and secondarily against the CRS. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence on comparative accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies to assess parallel testing in children with and without HIV. In addition, six of the 14 studies were included to evaluate LC-aNAATs with LF-LAM amongst children with HIV. Other than a high risk of bias with the CRS due to the potential incorporation of index results in clinical diagnoses, studies generally had low risk of bias across QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C domains. Parallel use of respiratory and stool LC-aNAATs Children without HIV or HIV status unknown We included eight studies (2145 participants, tuberculosis prevalence 8.1% (173/2145)) for assessment against the MRS. Parallel use of LC-aNAAT on respiratory samples and stool had an estimated pooled sensitivity of 79.9% (95% credible interval (CrI) 67.9 to 89.8) and an estimated pooled specificity of 93.4% (95% CrI 87.2 to 97.0). Compared to LC-aNAAT on respiratory samples alone, parallel testing had 7.1 (95% CrI 3.2 to 13.4) percentage points higher sensitivity and -1.7 (95% CrI -3.8 to -0.6) percentage point change in specificity (both low-certainty evidence). Compared to LC-aNAAT on stool alone, parallel testing had 22.1 (95% CrI 13.7 to 32.7) percentage points higher sensitivity (moderate-certainty evidence) and a -4.1 (95% CrI -8.0 to -1.7) percentage point difference in specificity (low-certainty evidence). Children with HIV Against the MRS (seven studies, 697 participants, tuberculosis prevalence 6.3% (44/697)), parallel use of LC-aNAAT on respiratory samples and stool had an estimated pooled sensitivity of 70.2% (95% CrI 51.1 to 84.7) and specificity of 95.4% (95% CrI 91.7 to 97.8). Compared to LC-aNAAT on respiratory samples alone, parallel testing had 4.0 (95% CrI 0.6 to 12.9) percentage points higher sensitivity (moderate-certainty evidence) and -1.9 (95% CrI -3.9 to -0.7) percentage point difference in specificity (moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to LC-aNAAT on stool alone, parallel testing had 8.5 (95% CrI 2.4 to 20.9) percentage points higher sensitivity and -1.4 (95% CrI -3.3 to -0.4) percentage point difference in specificity (both moderate-certainty evidence). Composite reference standard The parallel use of respiratory and stool LC-aNAATs had lower sensitivity than the CRS in children with and without HIV, with smaller differences compared to using each component test alone (very low-certainty evidence for children without HIV; low-certainty evidence for children with HIV). The specificity of parallel testing was similar between MRS and CRS. Parallel use of respiratory and stool LC-aNAATs and LF-LAM amongst children with HIV We included six studies for the evaluation of diagnostic accuracy against the MRS (653 participants, tuberculosis prevalence 6.6% (43/653)). Parallel use of LC-aNAAT on respiratory and stool samples and LF-LAM had an estimated pooled sensitivity of 77.6% (95% CrI 60.0 to 89.6) and an estimated pooled specificity of 83.9% (95% CrI 73.9 to 90.4). Compared to LC-aNAAT on respiratory and stool samples, parallel testing had 6.9 (95% CrI 1.5 to 20.1) percentage points higher sensitivity (low-certainty evidence) and a -10.2 (95% CrI -19.6 to -4.9) percentage point difference in specificity (moderate-certainty evidence). Composite reference standard Against the CRS (six studies, 674 participants, tuberculosis prevalence 42.4% (286/674)), parallel use of LC-aNAAT on respiratory and stool samples and LF-LAM had a pooled sensitivity of 30.0% (95% CrI 13.2 to 54.8) and specificity of 83.3% (95% CrI 69.8 to 90.2). Compared to LC-aNAAT on respiratory and stool samples, parallel testing had 11.5 (95% CrI 3.8 to 26.7) percentage points higher sensitivity (very low-certainty evidence) and -10.1 (95% CrI -21.6 to -4.9) percentage point difference in specificity (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Using LC-aNAAT with both respiratory and stool samples may increase the sensitivity of diagnostic testing for tuberculosis in children, including those with HIV, and the addition of LF-LAM for children with HIV may further increase sensitivity, although at the cost of reduced specificity. Stool and urine testing is non-invasive and may complement testing respiratory samples to increase tuberculosis case detection in children. The benefits of parallel testing may be greater in settings with high tuberculosis prevalence, while there may be a larger proportion of false-positive results and greater risk of overtreatment in areas of low tuberculosis prevalence. FUNDING: Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) WHO, TB Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment, Care & Innovation (PCI), Global TB Programme REGISTRATION: Protocol available via https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD016071, version published 13 May 2024.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,015
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,077

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0150,065
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0070,007
Bibliométrie0,0070,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,151
Tête enseignante GPT0,400
Écart entre enseignants0,249 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsMême sujetTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyTravaux en français237 207