Search

Background: West Africa has witnessed the unprecedented outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD). The Ebola virus (EBOV) can cause Ebola hemorrhagic fever, which is documented as the most deadly viral hemorrhagic fever in the world. RT-PCR had been suggested to be employed in the detection of Ebola virus; however, this method has high requirements for laboratory equipment and takes a long time to determine Ebola infection. Although Xpert Ebola is a fast and simple instrument for the detection of Ebola virus, its effect is still unclear. This study is aimed at evaluating the accuracy of Xpert Ebola in diagnosing Ebola virus infection., Methods: Using the keywords "Xpert" and "Ebola virus", relevant studies were retrieved from the database of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane. RT-PCR was employed as a reference standard to evaluate whether the study is eligible to be included in the meta-analysis. Data from these included studies were extracted by two independent assessors and were then analyzed by the Meta-DiSc 1.4 software to produce the heterogeneity of sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SP), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic advantage ratio (DOR) of the study. The results of pooled analysis were plotted, together with the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve plotted by calculating the area under the curve (AUC). Generated pooled summary estimates (95% CIs) were calculated for the evaluation of the overall accuracy of this study., Results: Five fourfold tables were made from the four studies that were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity of Xpert Ebola was 0.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) (0.95, 0.99)), and the pooled specificity was 0.98 (95% CI (0.97, 0.99)). The pooled values of positive likelihood ratio was 53.91 (95% CI (12.82, 226.79)), with negative likelihood ratio being 0.04 (95% CI (0.02, 0.08)) and diagnostic odds ratio being 2649.45 (95% CI (629.61, 11149.02)). The AUC was 0.9961., Conclusions: Compared with RT-PCR, Xpert Ebola has high sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, it is a valued alternative method for the clinical diagnosis of Ebola virus infection. However, the Xpert Ebola test is a qualitative test that does not provide quantitative testing of EBOV concentration. Whether it can completely replace other methods or not calls for further evidences., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no competing interests associated with the manuscript., (Copyright © 2021 Zhi-Yong Pan et al.)

Introduction: High mortality associated with carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria (CP-GNB) has evolved into a global health threat. Rapid and accurate detection as well as prompt treatment are of great significance in this case. Xpert Carba-R, a multiple qualitative analysis designed to detect five clinically relevant carbapenem-resistant gene families within one hour, is regarded as reliable, accurate, and easy-to-operate. This study is to present a systematic evaluation of the performance of Xpert Carba-R in detecting carbapenemase genes in GNB suspected for carbapenemase production., Methods: We searched and screened the literature on "Xpert Carba-R" in the database of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library, employing two independent evaluators to collect data, respectively. Then, statistical analysis of the data obtained was performed by the Stata 12.0 software to measure the accuracy of Xpert Carba-R assay in detecting the carbapenemase genes in GNB., Results: We screened a total of 1767 Gram-negative bacillus isolates documented in 9 articles. The precision of the detection of OXA-48 carbapenemase genes was 100%; that of NDM = 100%; that of VIM = 100%. When it came to KPC, the precision rate was 100%; that of IMP = 99%. The overall accuracy of the detection of carbapenemase genes was 100%., Conclusions: Xpert Carba-R assay demonstrates a 100% precision in identifying carbapenemase genes in GNB. It can be seen that Xpert Carba-R method is an effective tool for early clinical detection, which is suitable for the detection of carbapenase gene in GNB., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Hou-He Li et al.)

Background: Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) are widely spread across the world. Asymptomatic or inconspicuous CT/NG infections are difficult to diagnose and treat. Traditional methods have the disadvantages of low detection rate, inaccurate results, and long detection time. However, Xpert CT/NG makes up for the aforementioned shortcomings and has research value and popularization significance., Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched, and studies were screened using Xpert CT/NG for diagnosing CT/NG. QUADAS-2 was used to evaluate the quality of the eligible studies. Then, two groups of researchers independently extracted data from these studies. Meta-analyses of sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC) of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were conducted using Meta-DiSc 1.4. Finally, Deek's funnel plots were made using Stata 12.0 to evaluate publication bias., Results: 14 studies were identified, and 46 fourfold tables were extracted in this meta-analysis. The pooled SEN, SPE, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC in diagnosing CT were 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-0.95), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), 97.17 (95% CI: 56.76-166.32), 0.07 (95% CI: 0.04-0.12), 1857.25 (95% CI: 943.78-3654.86), and 0.9960, respectively. The pooled SEN, SPE, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC in diagnosing NG were 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.96), 1.00 (95% CI: 1.00-1.00), 278.15 (95% CI: 152.41-507.63), 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06-0.12), 4290.70 (95% CI: 2161.78-8516.16), and 0.9980, respectively., Conclusions: Xpert CT/NG had high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for CT and NG. However, more evidence is required to confirm that Xpert CT/NG might serve as the primary method for detecting CT and NG and even the gold standard for diagnosis in the future., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2020 Tian-Ao Xie et al.)

Background: Influenza virus mainly causes acute respiratory infections in humans. However, the diagnosis of influenza is not accurate based on clinical evidence, as the symptoms of flu are similar to other respiratory virus. The lateral-flow assay is a rapid method to detect influenza virus. But the effectiveness of the technique in detecting flu viruses is unclear. Hence, a meta-analysis would be performed to evaluate the accuracy of LFA in detecting influenza virus., Methods: Relevant literature was searched out in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases with the keywords "lateral flow assay" and "flu virus". By Meta-DiSc software, pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC), and area under the curve (AUC) can be calculated., Results: This meta-analysis contains 13 studies and 24 data. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the influenza virus detected by LFA were 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82-0.86) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.97-0.98), respectively. The pooled values of PLR, NLR, DOR, and SROC were 32.68 (17.16-62.24), 0.17 (0.13-0.24), 334.07 (144.27-773.53), and 0.9877. No publication bias was found., Conclusions: LFA exhibited high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing influenza virus. It is a valuable alternative method which can diagnose influenza virus quickly. However, more evidence is required to confirm whether LFA is comparable to traditional methods for detecting the virus., Competing Interests: The authors declare they do not have any conflict of interest to the work submitted., (Copyright © 2020 Meng-Yi Han et al.)

Background: The World Health Organization approved the use of Xpert MTB/RIF for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA, which has significantly improved the diagnosis of tuberculosis. In this study, our main objective was to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of Xpert MTB/RIF for lymphoid tuberculosis to determine whether Xpert MTB/RIF could be used as a routine detection method., Materials and Methods: We searched four databases for the relevant literature published from May 2007 to December 2019. The quality of the literature was evaluated with reference to the evaluation criteria. Data that were extracted from the literature on Xpert MTB/RIF diagnosis of lymphatic tuberculosis were used to plot the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve, after which the software was used to combine and analyze the accuracy of these data., Results: A total of 27 studies were included. The sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF for detecting lymphatic tuberculosis was 0.79 (95% CI (0.77, 0.81)), the specificity was 0.88 (95% CI (0.87, 0.90)), and the positive likelihood ratio (PLR) was 7.21 (95% CI (4.93, 10.55)). In addition, the negative likelihood ratio (NLR) was 0.25 (95% CI (0.19, 0.32)) and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 40.23 (95% CI (24.53, 65.98)). At the same time, we used the extracted data to make the SROC curve, obtaining the following parameters: area under the curve (AUC) = 0.9144, Q = 0.8470 (SE = 0.0163)., Conclusion: Xpert MTB/RIF has high accuracy in detecting lymphatic tuberculosis, and it can be used to quickly and easily diagnose lymphatic tuberculosis at an early stage as a general method., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2020 Hou-He Li et al.)