0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Adenosine deaminase from the cerebrospinal fluid for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis: A meta‐analysis

      1 , 2
      Tropical Medicine & International Health
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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

          Objective

          To comprehensively evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of adenosine deaminase in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) for tuberculous meningitis (TBM), and the potential influence of patients' age groups and cutoffs of measured adenosine deaminase.

          Methods

          Systematic review and meta‐analysis of relevant studies retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated with a random‐effect model.

          Results

          Overall, 43 studies with 1653 patients with TBM and 3417 controls without were included. Pooled results showed that adenosine deaminase in CSF is associated with satisfactory diagnostic efficacy for TBM, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82–0.90), specificity of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86–0.91), positive likelihood ratio of 7.70 (95% CI: 6.16–9.63), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.15 (95% CI: 0.12–0.20). The pooled receiver operating characteristic (AUC) was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91–0.96), suggesting good performance. Subgroup analyses showed good diagnostic efficacies of adenosine deaminase in CSF for both adults (AUC 0.95) and children (AUC 0.96) with TBM. AUCs indicating the diagnostic accuracies of adenosine deaminase in CSF for TBM were 0.93 for studies with cutoffs <10 U/L and and 0.94 for a cutoff =10 U/L, but only 0.90 for studies with cutoffs >10 U/L.

          Conclusions

          Measuring adenosine deaminase of CSF shows satisfactory diagnostic efficacy for TBM in children and adults, particularly if using a cutoff ≤10 U/L.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

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

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

            The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

              In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Tropical Medicine & International Health
                Tropical Med Int Health
                Wiley
                1360-2276
                1365-3156
                March 2023
                January 20 2023
                March 2023
                : 28
                : 3
                : 175-185
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Ningbo HwaMei Hospital, Ningbo Institute of Life and Health Industry University of Chinese Academy of Sciences Ningbo China
                [2 ] Department of Neurology, Ningbo HwaMei Hospital University of Chinese Academy of Sciences Ningbo China
                Article
                10.1111/tmi.13849
                36591905
                a4027c70-d5f8-4581-b2a4-efbe92728c78
                © 2023

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article