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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Freeman, Karoline, Tsertsvadze, Alexander, Taylor-Phillips, Sian, McCarthy, Noel, Mistry, Hema, Manuel, Rohini, Mason, James
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