4.5 Review

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

出版社

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

关键词

-

资金

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

4.5
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