Diagnostic accuracy of automation and non-automation techniques for identifying Burkholderia pseudomallei: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Burkholderia pseudomallei, a Gram-negative pathogen, causes melioidosis. Although various clinical laboratory identification methods exist, culture-based techniques lack comprehensive evaluation. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of culture-based automation and non-automation methods.
Methods: Data were collected via PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus using specific search strategies. Selected studies underwent bias assessment using QUADAS-2. Sensitivity and specificity were computed, generating pooled estimates. Heterogeneity was assessed using I ² statistics.
Results: The review encompassed 20 studies with 2988 B. pseudomallei samples and 753 non-B. pseudomallei samples. Automation-based methods, particularly with updating databases, exhibited high pooled sensitivity (82.79%; 95% CI 64.44-95.85%) and specificity (99.94%; 95% CI 98.93-100.00%). Subgroup analysis highlighted superior sensitivity for updating-database automation (96.42%, 95% CI 90.01-99.87%) compared to non-updating (3.31%, 95% CI 0.00-10.28%), while specificity remained high at 99.94% (95% CI 98.93-100%). Non-automation methods displayed varying sensitivity and specificity. In-house latex agglutination demonstrated the highest sensitivity (100%; 95% CI 98.49-100%), followed by commercial latex agglutination (99.24%; 95% CI 96.64-100%). However, API 20E had the lowest sensitivity (19.42%; 95% CI 12.94-28.10%). Overall, non-automation tools showed sensitivity of 88.34% (95% CI 77.30-96.25%) and specificity of 90.76% (95% CI 78.45-98.57%).
Conclusion: The study underscores automation's crucial role in accurately identifying B. pseudomallei, supporting evidence-based melioidosis management decisions. Automation technologies, especially those with updating databases, provide reliable and efficient identification.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)