4.5 Review

Sputum induction for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-011-1485-6

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. SATVI
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [1R01AI075603-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sputum induction (SI) has been proposed as the optimal sample collection method for patients with paucibacillary tuberculosis (TB). Studies reporting the culture of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from SI were reviewed. A random-effects meta-analysis of diagnostic yield (numerator M. tuberculosis SI culture-positive cases; denominator all culture-positive cases) was conducted. Diagnostic yields (95% confidence intervals, CIs) were displayed as Forest plots. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Chi-squared and I-squared tests and meta-regression analysis. Ninety publications were screened, 28 full-text papers reviewed, and 17 analyzed. Collectively, n = 627 SI culture-positive cases among n = 975 culture-confirmed TB cases were reported. The diagnostic yield of SI ranged from 35 to 95%. The pooled diagnostic yield was 74% (CI 65-81%), with significant heterogeneity (p < 0.0001, I-2 = 86%). There were no statistically significant differences in the yield between sub-groups defined by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence or age. Univariate analysis demonstrated that the use of fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) as the comparator method was associated with a 22% reduction (CI 2-42%) in the diagnostic yield of SI. However, after adjustment for confounding, the meta-regression analysis showed that FOB usage (p = 0.21) and saline concentration (p = 0.31) were not independently associated with the diagnostic yield. SI will detect approximately three-quarters of M. tuberculosis culture-positive cases under study conditions. Significant heterogeneity in the diagnostic yield was not explained by HIV prevalence, age, or the use of FOB as the comparator method. The use of a particular nebulized saline concentration for SI cannot be recommended on the basis of this meta-regression analysis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available