29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Diagnostic test accuracy of anti-glycopeptidolipid-core IgA antibodies for Mycobacterium avium complex pulmonary disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Currently, an anti-glycopeptidolipid (GPL)-core IgA antibody assay kit for diagnosing Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) is commercially available. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to reveal the precise diagnostic accuracy of anti-GPL-core IgA antibodies for MAC pulmonary disease (MAC-PD). We systematically searched reports that could provide data for both sensitivity and specificity by anti-GPL-core IgA antibody for clinically diagnosed MAC-PD. Diagnostic test accuracy was estimated using the bivariate model. Of the 257 articles that we had found through primary search, we finally included 16 reports consisted of 1098 reference positive subjects and 2270 reference negative subjects. The diagnostic odds ratio was 24.8 (95% CI 11.6–52.8, I 2 = 5.5%) and the area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves was 0.873 (95% CI 0.837–0.913). With a cutoff value of 0.7 U/mL, the summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 0.696 (95% CI 0.621–0.761) and 0.906 (95% CI 0.836–0.951), respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 7.4 (95% CI 4.1–13.8) and 0.34 (95% CI 0.26–0.43), respectively. The demanding clinical diagnostic criteria may be a cause of false positive of the index test. The index test had good overall diagnostic accuracy and was useful to ruling in MAC-PD with the cutoff value.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews

          Background Following publication of the PRISMA statement, the UK Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York in England began to develop an international prospective register of systematic reviews with health-related outcomes. The objectives were to reduce unplanned duplication of reviews and provide transparency in the review process, with the aim of minimizing reporting bias. Methods An international advisory group was formed and a consultation undertaken to establish the key items necessary for inclusion in the register and to gather views on various aspects of functionality. This article describes the development of the register, now called PROSPERO, and the process of registration. Results PROSPERO offers free registration and free public access to a unique prospective register of systematic reviews across all areas of health from all around the world. The dedicated web-based interface is electronically searchable and available to all prospective registrants. At the moment, inclusion in PROSPERO is restricted to systematic reviews of the effects of interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor health conditions, for which there is a health-related outcome. Ideally, registration should take place before the researchers have started formal screening against inclusion criteria but reviews are eligible as long as they have not progressed beyond the point of completing data extraction. The required dataset captures the key attributes of review design as well as the administrative details necessary for registration. Submitted registration forms are checked against the scope for inclusion in PROSPERO and for clarity of content before being made publicly available on the register, rejected, or returned to the applicant for clarification. The public records include an audit trail of major changes to planned methods, details of when the review has been completed, and links to resulting publications when provided by the authors. Conclusions There has been international support and an enthusiastic response to the principle of prospective registration of protocols for systematic reviews and to the development of PROSPERO. In October 2011, PROSPERO contained 200 records of systematic reviews being undertaken in 26 countries around the world on a diverse range of interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Summary receiver operating characteristic curve analysis techniques in the evaluation of diagnostic tests.

            The number of studies in the literature using summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) analysis of diagnostic accuracy is rising. The SROC is useful in many such meta-analyses, but is often poorly understood by clinicians, and its use can be inappropriate. The academic literature on this topic is not always easy to comprehend. Interpretation is therefore difficult. This report aims to explain the concept of SROC analysis, its advantages, disadvantages, indications, and interpretation for the cardiothoracic surgeon. We use a practical approach to show how SROC analysis can be applied to meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy by using a contrived dataset of studies on virtual bronchoscopy in the diagnosis of airway lesions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Refining clinical diagnosis with likelihood ratios.

              Likelihood ratios can refine clinical diagnosis on the basis of signs and symptoms; however, they are underused for patients' care. A likelihood ratio is the percentage of ill people with a given test result divided by the percentage of well individuals with the same result. Ideally, abnormal test results should be much more typical in ill individuals than in those who are well (high likelihood ratio) and normal test results should be most frequent in well people than in sick people (low likelihood ratio). Likelihood ratios near unity have little effect on decision-making; by contrast, high or low ratios can greatly shift the clinician's estimate of the probability of disease. Likelihood ratios can be calculated not only for dichotomous (positive or negative) tests but also for tests with multiple levels of results, such as creatine kinase or ventilation-perfusion scans. When combined with an accurate clinical diagnosis, likelihood ratios from ancillary tests improve diagnostic accuracy in a synergistic manner.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group
                2045-2322
                04 July 2016
                2016
                : 6
                : 29325
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Pulmonology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine , 3-9, Fukuura , Kanazawa, Yokohama, Japan
                Author notes
                Article
                srep29325
                10.1038/srep29325
                4931691
                27373718
                6e639fa6-1ae5-481a-8a39-ff04fd4bcecf
                Copyright © 2016, Macmillan Publishers Limited

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 07 April 2016
                : 15 June 2016
                Categories
                Article

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article