Cargando…
Diagnostic test accuracy of glutamate dehydrogenase for Clostridium difficile: Systematic review and meta-analysis
We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of detecting glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) based on the hierarchical model. Two investigators electrically searched four databases. Reference tests were stool cell cytoto...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4945925/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27418431 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep29754 |
_version_ | 1782442946567602176 |
---|---|
author | Arimoto, Jun Horita, Nobuyuki Kato, Shingo Fuyuki, Akiko Higurashi, Takuma Ohkubo, Hidenori Endo, Hiroki Takashi, Nonaka Kaneko, Takeshi Nakajima, Atsushi |
author_facet | Arimoto, Jun Horita, Nobuyuki Kato, Shingo Fuyuki, Akiko Higurashi, Takuma Ohkubo, Hidenori Endo, Hiroki Takashi, Nonaka Kaneko, Takeshi Nakajima, Atsushi |
author_sort | Arimoto, Jun |
collection | PubMed |
description | We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of detecting glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) based on the hierarchical model. Two investigators electrically searched four databases. Reference tests were stool cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA) and stool toxigenic culture (TC). To assess the overall accuracy, we calculated the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) using a DerSimonian-Laird random-model and area the under hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (AUC) using Holling’s proportional hazard models. The summary estimate of the sensitivity and the specificity were obtained using the bivariate model. According to 42 reports consisting of 3055 reference positive comparisons, and 26188 reference negative comparisons, the DOR was 115 (95%CI: 77–172, I(2) = 12.0%) and the AUC was 0.970 (95%CI: 0.958–0.982). The summary estimate of sensitivity and specificity were 0.911 (95%CI: 0.871–0.940) and 0.912 (95%CI: 0.892–0.928). The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 10.4 (95%CI 8.4–12.7) and 0.098 (95%CI 0.066–0.142), respectively. Detecting GDH for the diagnosis of CDI had both high sensitivity and specificity. Considering its low cost and prevalence, it is appropriate for a screening test for CDI. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4945925 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49459252016-07-26 Diagnostic test accuracy of glutamate dehydrogenase for Clostridium difficile: Systematic review and meta-analysis Arimoto, Jun Horita, Nobuyuki Kato, Shingo Fuyuki, Akiko Higurashi, Takuma Ohkubo, Hidenori Endo, Hiroki Takashi, Nonaka Kaneko, Takeshi Nakajima, Atsushi Sci Rep Article We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of detecting glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) based on the hierarchical model. Two investigators electrically searched four databases. Reference tests were stool cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA) and stool toxigenic culture (TC). To assess the overall accuracy, we calculated the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) using a DerSimonian-Laird random-model and area the under hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (AUC) using Holling’s proportional hazard models. The summary estimate of the sensitivity and the specificity were obtained using the bivariate model. According to 42 reports consisting of 3055 reference positive comparisons, and 26188 reference negative comparisons, the DOR was 115 (95%CI: 77–172, I(2) = 12.0%) and the AUC was 0.970 (95%CI: 0.958–0.982). The summary estimate of sensitivity and specificity were 0.911 (95%CI: 0.871–0.940) and 0.912 (95%CI: 0.892–0.928). The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 10.4 (95%CI 8.4–12.7) and 0.098 (95%CI 0.066–0.142), respectively. Detecting GDH for the diagnosis of CDI had both high sensitivity and specificity. Considering its low cost and prevalence, it is appropriate for a screening test for CDI. Nature Publishing Group 2016-07-15 /pmc/articles/PMC4945925/ /pubmed/27418431 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep29754 Text en Copyright © 2016, Macmillan Publishers Limited http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Article Arimoto, Jun Horita, Nobuyuki Kato, Shingo Fuyuki, Akiko Higurashi, Takuma Ohkubo, Hidenori Endo, Hiroki Takashi, Nonaka Kaneko, Takeshi Nakajima, Atsushi Diagnostic test accuracy of glutamate dehydrogenase for Clostridium difficile: Systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Diagnostic test accuracy of glutamate dehydrogenase for Clostridium difficile: Systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Diagnostic test accuracy of glutamate dehydrogenase for Clostridium difficile: Systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Diagnostic test accuracy of glutamate dehydrogenase for Clostridium difficile: Systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Diagnostic test accuracy of glutamate dehydrogenase for Clostridium difficile: Systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Diagnostic test accuracy of glutamate dehydrogenase for Clostridium difficile: Systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | diagnostic test accuracy of glutamate dehydrogenase for clostridium difficile: systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4945925/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27418431 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep29754 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT arimotojun diagnostictestaccuracyofglutamatedehydrogenaseforclostridiumdifficilesystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT horitanobuyuki diagnostictestaccuracyofglutamatedehydrogenaseforclostridiumdifficilesystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT katoshingo diagnostictestaccuracyofglutamatedehydrogenaseforclostridiumdifficilesystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT fuyukiakiko diagnostictestaccuracyofglutamatedehydrogenaseforclostridiumdifficilesystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT higurashitakuma diagnostictestaccuracyofglutamatedehydrogenaseforclostridiumdifficilesystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT ohkubohidenori diagnostictestaccuracyofglutamatedehydrogenaseforclostridiumdifficilesystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT endohiroki diagnostictestaccuracyofglutamatedehydrogenaseforclostridiumdifficilesystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT takashinonaka diagnostictestaccuracyofglutamatedehydrogenaseforclostridiumdifficilesystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT kanekotakeshi diagnostictestaccuracyofglutamatedehydrogenaseforclostridiumdifficilesystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT nakajimaatsushi diagnostictestaccuracyofglutamatedehydrogenaseforclostridiumdifficilesystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |