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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Arimoto, Jun, Horita, Nobuyuki, Kato, Shingo, Fuyuki, Akiko, Higurashi, Takuma, Ohkubo, Hidenori, Endo, Hiroki, Takashi, Nonaka, Kaneko, Takeshi, Nakajima, Atsushi
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