Search

Background: Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews-they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests.Methods: We developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world.Results: All participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively).Conclusion: Our survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Serological (antibody detection) tests for tuberculosis (TB) are widely used in developing countries. As part of a World Health Organization policy process, we performed an updated systematic review to assess the diagnostic accuracy of commercial serological tests for pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB with a focus on the relevance of these tests in lowand middle-income countries. Methods and Findings: We used methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration and GRADE approach for rating quality of evidence. In a previous review, we searched multiple databases for papers published from 1 January 1990 to 30 May 2006, and in this update, we add additional papers published from that period until 29 June 2010. We prespecified subgroups to address heterogeneity and summarized test performance using bivariate random effects meta-analysis. For pulmonary TB, we included 67 studies (48% from low- and middle-income countries) with 5,147 participants. For all tests, estimates were variable for sensitivity (0% to 100%) and specificity (31% to 100%). For anda-TB IgG, the only test with enough studies for meta-analysis, pooled sensitivity was 76% (95% CI 63%-87%) in smear-positive (seven studies) and 59% (95% CI 10%-96%) in smear-negative (four studies) patients; pooled specificities were 92% (95% CI 74%-98%) and 91% (95% CI 79%-96%), respectively. Compared with ELISA (pooled sensitivity 60% [95% CI 6%-65%]; pooled specificity 98% [95% CI 96%-99%]), immunochromatographic tests yielded lower pooled sensitivity (53%, 95% CI 42%-64%) and comparable pooled specificity (98%, 95% CI 94%-99%). For extrapulmonary TB, we included 25 studies (40% from low- and middle-income countries) with 1,809 participants. For all tests, estimates were variable for sensitivity (0% to 100%) and specificity (59% to 100%). Overall, quality of evidence was graded very low for studies of pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB. Conclusions: Despite expansion of the literature since 2006, commercial serological tests continue to produce inconsistent and imprecise estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Quality of evidence remains very low. These data informed a recently published World Health Organization policy statement against serological tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. The diagnostic value of interferon-&ggr; release assays (IGRAs) for active tuberculosis in low- and middle-income countries is unclear. Methods. We searched multiple databases for studies published through May 2010 that evaluated the diagnostic performance of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) and T-SPOT.TB (T-SPOT) among adults with suspected active pulmonary tuberculosis or patients with confirmed cases in low- and middle-income countries. We summarized test performance characteristics with use of forest plots, hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves, and bivariate random effects models. Results. Our search identified 789 citations, of which 27 observational studies (17 QFT-GIT and 10 T-SPOT) evaluating 590 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-uninfected and 844 HIV-infected individuals met inclusion criteria. Among HIV-infected patients, HSROC/bivariate pooled sensitivity estimates (highest quality data) were 76% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45%-92%) for T-SPOT and 60% (95% CI, 34%-82%) for QFT-GIT. HSROC/ bivariate pooled specificity estimates were low for both IGRA platforms among all participants (T-SPOT, 61% [95% CI, 40%-79%]; QFT-GIT, 52% [95% CI, 41%-62%]) and among HIV-infected persons (T-SPOT, 52% [95% CI, 40%-63%]; QFT-GIT, 50% [95% CI, 35%-65%]). There was no consistent evidence that either IGRA was more sensitive than the tuberculin skin test for active tuberculosis diagnosis. Conclusions. In low- and middle-income countries, neither the tuberculin skin test nor IGRAs have value for active tuberculosis diagnosis in adults, especially in the context of HIV coinfection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: WHO has previously recommended sputum-smear examination at the end of the second month of treatment in patients with recently diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis, and, if positive, extension of the intensive therapy phase. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the accuracy of a positive sputum smear or culture during treatment for predicting failure or relapse in pulmonary tuberculosis. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published in English through December, 2009. We included randomised controlled trials, cohort, and case-control studies of previously untreated pulmonary tuberculosis patients who had received a standardised regimen with rifampicin in the initial phase. Accuracy results were summarised in forest plots and pooled by use of a hierarchical regression approach. 15 papers (28 studies) met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivities for both 2-month smear (24% [95% CI 12–42%], six studies) and culture (40% [95% CI 25–56%], four studies) to predict relapse were low. Corresponding specificities (85% [95% CI 72–90%] and 85% [95% CI 77–91%]) were higher, but modest. For failure, 2-month smear (seven studies) had low sensitivity (57% [95% CI 41–73%]) and higher, although modest, specificity (81% [95% CI 72–87%]). Both sputum-smear microscopy and mycobacterial culture during tuberculosis treatment have low sensitivity and modest specificity for predicting failure and relapse. Although we pooled a diverse group of patients, the individual studies had similar performance characteristics. Better predictive markers are needed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]