tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Jan 28. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz056. [Epub ahead of print]
[h=1]Rapid molecular tests for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and other respiratory viruses: a systematic review of diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact studies.[/h] Vos LM[SUP]1[/SUP], Bruning AHL[SUP]2[/SUP], Reitsma JB[SUP]3[/SUP], Schuurman R[SUP]4[/SUP], Riezebos-Brilman A[SUP]4[/SUP], Hoepelman AIM[SUP]1[/SUP], Oosterheert JJ[SUP]1[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] We systematically reviewed available evidence from EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library on diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of commercially available rapid (results <3 hours) molecular diagnostics for respiratory viruses as compared to conventional molecular tests. Quality of included studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 criteria for diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment and ROBINS-I criteria for randomized and observational impact studies, respectively. 63 DTA reports (56 studies) were meta-analysed with a pooled sensitivity of 90.9% (95% confidence interval (CI), 88.7%-93.1%) and specificity of 96.1% (95%CI, 94.2%-97.9%) for the detection of either influenza virus (n=29), RSV (n=1), influenza virus and RSV (n=19), or a viral panel including influenza virus and RSV (n=14). The 15 included impact studies - 5 randomized - were very heterogeneous and results were therefore inconclusive. We however suggest to consider implementation of rapid diagnostics in hospital care settings.
[h=4]Prospero registration:[/h] CRD42017057881.
PMID: 30689772 DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciz056
[h=1]Rapid molecular tests for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and other respiratory viruses: a systematic review of diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact studies.[/h] Vos LM[SUP]1[/SUP], Bruning AHL[SUP]2[/SUP], Reitsma JB[SUP]3[/SUP], Schuurman R[SUP]4[/SUP], Riezebos-Brilman A[SUP]4[/SUP], Hoepelman AIM[SUP]1[/SUP], Oosterheert JJ[SUP]1[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h] We systematically reviewed available evidence from EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library on diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of commercially available rapid (results <3 hours) molecular diagnostics for respiratory viruses as compared to conventional molecular tests. Quality of included studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 criteria for diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment and ROBINS-I criteria for randomized and observational impact studies, respectively. 63 DTA reports (56 studies) were meta-analysed with a pooled sensitivity of 90.9% (95% confidence interval (CI), 88.7%-93.1%) and specificity of 96.1% (95%CI, 94.2%-97.9%) for the detection of either influenza virus (n=29), RSV (n=1), influenza virus and RSV (n=19), or a viral panel including influenza virus and RSV (n=14). The 15 included impact studies - 5 randomized - were very heterogeneous and results were therefore inconclusive. We however suggest to consider implementation of rapid diagnostics in hospital care settings.
[h=4]Prospero registration:[/h] CRD42017057881.
PMID: 30689772 DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciz056