4.7 Review

Sputum monitoring during tuberculosis treatment for predicting outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

LANCET INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 387-394

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70071-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. WHO, Tuberculosis Strategy and Health Systems, Stop TB Department, Geneva, Switzerland
  2. US National Institutes of Health
  3. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

WHO has previously recommended sputum-smear examination at the end of the second month of treatment in patients with recently diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis, and, if positive, extension of the intensive therapy phase. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the accuracy of a positive sputum smear or culture during treatment for predicting failure or relapse in pulmonary tuberculosis. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published in English through December, 2009. We included randomised controlled trials, cohort, and case-control studies of previously untreated pulmonary tuberculosis patients who had received a standardised regimen with rifampicin in the initial phase. Accuracy results were summarised in forest plots and pooled by use of a hierarchical regression approach. 15 papers (28 studies) met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivities for both 2-month smear (24% [95% CI 12-42%], six studies) and culture (40% [95% CI 25-56%], four studies) to predict relapse were low. Corresponding specificities (85% [95% CI 72-90%] and 85% [95% CI 77-91%]) were higher, but modest. For failure, 2-month smear (seven studies) had low sensitivity (57% [95% CI 41-73%]) and higher, although modest, specificity (81% [95% Cl 72-87%]). Both sputum-smear microscopy and mycobacterial culture during tuberculosis treatment have low sensitivity and modest specificity for predicting failure and relapse. Although we pooled a diverse group of patients, the individual studies had similar performance characteristics. Better predictive markers are needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据