Cargando…
Agreement between gastrointestinal panel testing and standard microbiology methods for detecting pathogens in suspected infectious gastroenteritis: Test evaluation and meta-analysis in the absence of a reference standard
OBJECTIVE: Multiplex gastrointestinal pathogen panel (GPP) tests simultaneously identify bacterial, viral and parasitic pathogens from the stool samples of patients with suspected infectious gastroenteritis presenting in hospital or the community. We undertook a systematic review to compare the accu...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5333893/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28253337 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173196 |
_version_ | 1782511791711977472 |
---|---|
author | Freeman, Karoline Tsertsvadze, Alexander Taylor-Phillips, Sian McCarthy, Noel Mistry, Hema Manuel, Rohini Mason, James |
author_facet | Freeman, Karoline Tsertsvadze, Alexander Taylor-Phillips, Sian McCarthy, Noel Mistry, Hema Manuel, Rohini Mason, James |
author_sort | Freeman, Karoline |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Multiplex gastrointestinal pathogen panel (GPP) tests simultaneously identify bacterial, viral and parasitic pathogens from the stool samples of patients with suspected infectious gastroenteritis presenting in hospital or the community. We undertook a systematic review to compare the accuracy of GPP tests with standard microbiology techniques. REVIEW METHODS: Searches in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane library were undertaken from inception to January 2016. Eligible studies compared GPP tests with standard microbiology techniques in patients with suspected gastroenteritis. Quality assessment of included studies used tailored QUADAS-2. In the absence of a reference standard we analysed test performance taking GPP tests and standard microbiology techniques in turn as the benchmark test, using random effects meta-analysis of proportions. RESULTS: No study provided an adequate reference standard with which to compare the test accuracy of GPP and conventional tests. Ten studies informed a meta-analysis of positive and negative agreement. Positive agreement across all pathogens was 0.93 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.96) when conventional methods were the benchmark and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.58 to 0.77) when GPP provided the benchmark. Negative agreement was high in both instances due to the high proportion of negative cases. GPP testing produced a greater number of pathogen-positive findings than conventional testing. It is unclear whether these additional ‘positives’ are clinically important. CONCLUSIONS: GPP testing has the potential to simplify testing and accelerate reporting when compared to conventional microbiology methods. However the impact of GPP testing upon the management, treatment and outcome of patients is poorly understood and further studies are needed to evaluate the health economic impact of GPP testing compared with standard methods. The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO as CRD42016033320. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5333893 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53338932017-03-10 Agreement between gastrointestinal panel testing and standard microbiology methods for detecting pathogens in suspected infectious gastroenteritis: Test evaluation and meta-analysis in the absence of a reference standard Freeman, Karoline Tsertsvadze, Alexander Taylor-Phillips, Sian McCarthy, Noel Mistry, Hema Manuel, Rohini Mason, James PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: Multiplex gastrointestinal pathogen panel (GPP) tests simultaneously identify bacterial, viral and parasitic pathogens from the stool samples of patients with suspected infectious gastroenteritis presenting in hospital or the community. We undertook a systematic review to compare the accuracy of GPP tests with standard microbiology techniques. REVIEW METHODS: Searches in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane library were undertaken from inception to January 2016. Eligible studies compared GPP tests with standard microbiology techniques in patients with suspected gastroenteritis. Quality assessment of included studies used tailored QUADAS-2. In the absence of a reference standard we analysed test performance taking GPP tests and standard microbiology techniques in turn as the benchmark test, using random effects meta-analysis of proportions. RESULTS: No study provided an adequate reference standard with which to compare the test accuracy of GPP and conventional tests. Ten studies informed a meta-analysis of positive and negative agreement. Positive agreement across all pathogens was 0.93 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.96) when conventional methods were the benchmark and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.58 to 0.77) when GPP provided the benchmark. Negative agreement was high in both instances due to the high proportion of negative cases. GPP testing produced a greater number of pathogen-positive findings than conventional testing. It is unclear whether these additional ‘positives’ are clinically important. CONCLUSIONS: GPP testing has the potential to simplify testing and accelerate reporting when compared to conventional microbiology methods. However the impact of GPP testing upon the management, treatment and outcome of patients is poorly understood and further studies are needed to evaluate the health economic impact of GPP testing compared with standard methods. The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO as CRD42016033320. Public Library of Science 2017-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5333893/ /pubmed/28253337 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173196 Text en © 2017 Freeman et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Freeman, Karoline Tsertsvadze, Alexander Taylor-Phillips, Sian McCarthy, Noel Mistry, Hema Manuel, Rohini Mason, James Agreement between gastrointestinal panel testing and standard microbiology methods for detecting pathogens in suspected infectious gastroenteritis: Test evaluation and meta-analysis in the absence of a reference standard |
title | Agreement between gastrointestinal panel testing and standard microbiology methods for detecting pathogens in suspected infectious gastroenteritis: Test evaluation and meta-analysis in the absence of a reference standard |
title_full | Agreement between gastrointestinal panel testing and standard microbiology methods for detecting pathogens in suspected infectious gastroenteritis: Test evaluation and meta-analysis in the absence of a reference standard |
title_fullStr | Agreement between gastrointestinal panel testing and standard microbiology methods for detecting pathogens in suspected infectious gastroenteritis: Test evaluation and meta-analysis in the absence of a reference standard |
title_full_unstemmed | Agreement between gastrointestinal panel testing and standard microbiology methods for detecting pathogens in suspected infectious gastroenteritis: Test evaluation and meta-analysis in the absence of a reference standard |
title_short | Agreement between gastrointestinal panel testing and standard microbiology methods for detecting pathogens in suspected infectious gastroenteritis: Test evaluation and meta-analysis in the absence of a reference standard |
title_sort | agreement between gastrointestinal panel testing and standard microbiology methods for detecting pathogens in suspected infectious gastroenteritis: test evaluation and meta-analysis in the absence of a reference standard |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5333893/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28253337 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173196 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT freemankaroline agreementbetweengastrointestinalpaneltestingandstandardmicrobiologymethodsfordetectingpathogensinsuspectedinfectiousgastroenteritistestevaluationandmetaanalysisintheabsenceofareferencestandard AT tsertsvadzealexander agreementbetweengastrointestinalpaneltestingandstandardmicrobiologymethodsfordetectingpathogensinsuspectedinfectiousgastroenteritistestevaluationandmetaanalysisintheabsenceofareferencestandard AT taylorphillipssian agreementbetweengastrointestinalpaneltestingandstandardmicrobiologymethodsfordetectingpathogensinsuspectedinfectiousgastroenteritistestevaluationandmetaanalysisintheabsenceofareferencestandard AT mccarthynoel agreementbetweengastrointestinalpaneltestingandstandardmicrobiologymethodsfordetectingpathogensinsuspectedinfectiousgastroenteritistestevaluationandmetaanalysisintheabsenceofareferencestandard AT mistryhema agreementbetweengastrointestinalpaneltestingandstandardmicrobiologymethodsfordetectingpathogensinsuspectedinfectiousgastroenteritistestevaluationandmetaanalysisintheabsenceofareferencestandard AT manuelrohini agreementbetweengastrointestinalpaneltestingandstandardmicrobiologymethodsfordetectingpathogensinsuspectedinfectiousgastroenteritistestevaluationandmetaanalysisintheabsenceofareferencestandard AT masonjames agreementbetweengastrointestinalpaneltestingandstandardmicrobiologymethodsfordetectingpathogensinsuspectedinfectiousgastroenteritistestevaluationandmetaanalysisintheabsenceofareferencestandard |