Laboratory Diagnostic Methods for
Clostridioides difficile
Clostridioides difficile infection
Laboratory diagnostic methods
Meta-analysis
Systematic review
Journal
Annals of laboratory medicine
ISSN: 2234-3814
Titre abrégé: Ann Lab Med
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101571172
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Mar 2021
01 Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
28
02
2020
revised:
02
04
2020
accepted:
08
09
2020
entrez:
16
10
2020
pubmed:
17
10
2020
medline:
27
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Various methods are used for the diagnosis of We performed systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed. The following methods were evaluated: glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) enzyme immunoassays (GDH EIAs), toxin A and B detection by enzyme immunoassays (toxin AB EIAs), and nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for Based on 39 studies, the pooled sensitivities/specificities were 92.7%/94.6%, 57.9%/97.0%, and 90.0%/95.8% for GDH EIAs, toxin AB EIAs, and NAATs, respectively, compared with those of toxigenic culture. The pooled sensitivities of automated EIAs were significantly higher than those of non-automated EIAs for both GDH and toxins A and B. The pooled sensitivity of Xpert Toxin AB EIAs still show unsatisfactory sensitivity, whereas GDH EIAs and NAATs show relatively high sensitivity. However, toxin AB EIAs are the most specific tests. This study may provide useful information for CDI diagnosis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Various methods are used for the diagnosis of
METHODS
METHODS
We performed systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed. The following methods were evaluated: glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) enzyme immunoassays (GDH EIAs), toxin A and B detection by enzyme immunoassays (toxin AB EIAs), and nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for
RESULTS
RESULTS
Based on 39 studies, the pooled sensitivities/specificities were 92.7%/94.6%, 57.9%/97.0%, and 90.0%/95.8% for GDH EIAs, toxin AB EIAs, and NAATs, respectively, compared with those of toxigenic culture. The pooled sensitivities of automated EIAs were significantly higher than those of non-automated EIAs for both GDH and toxins A and B. The pooled sensitivity of Xpert
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Toxin AB EIAs still show unsatisfactory sensitivity, whereas GDH EIAs and NAATs show relatively high sensitivity. However, toxin AB EIAs are the most specific tests. This study may provide useful information for CDI diagnosis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33063678
pii: alm.2021.41.2.171
doi: 10.3343/alm.2021.41.2.171
pmc: PMC7591293
doi:
Substances chimiques
Bacterial Proteins
0
Bacterial Toxins
0
Glutamate Dehydrogenase
EC 1.4.1.2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
171-180Références
JAMA. 2015 Jan 27;313(4):398-408
pubmed: 25626036
Rev Argent Microbiol. 2018 Jan - Mar;50(1):36-44
pubmed: 28988901
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 11;10(12):e0144604
pubmed: 26659011
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017 Jul;36(7):1253-1259
pubmed: 28181032
Korean J Lab Med. 2009 Apr;29(2):122-6
pubmed: 19411778
Ann Lab Med. 2015 May;35(3):306-13
pubmed: 25932438
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017 Aug;23(8):567-572
pubmed: 28223147
J Clin Lab Anal. 2017 Nov;31(6):
pubmed: 28177534
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015 Apr;34(4):727-36
pubmed: 25421216
Ann Lab Med. 2019 May;39(3):317-321
pubmed: 30623624
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015 Sep;83(1):7-10
pubmed: 26081240
J Med Microbiol. 2012 Feb;61(Pt 2):274-277
pubmed: 21959205
J Clin Microbiol. 2015 Jun;53(6):1942-4
pubmed: 25809977
J Clin Microbiol. 2018 Jul 26;56(8):
pubmed: 29898996
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016 Oct;35(10):1655-9
pubmed: 27323765
Pathology. 2015 Feb;47(2):165-8
pubmed: 25551308
Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2014 Winter;44(1):27-31
pubmed: 24695470
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016 Aug;22 Suppl 4:S63-81
pubmed: 27460910
J Infect Chemother. 2018 Feb;24(2):88-91
pubmed: 28974364
Ann Lab Med. 2014 May;34(3):235-9
pubmed: 24790912
Anaerobe. 2009 Dec;15(6):266-9
pubmed: 19772927
J Clin Microbiol. 2017 Dec;55(12):3426-3436
pubmed: 28954901
APMIS. 2016 Nov;124(11):1016-1020
pubmed: 27651167
J Microbiol Methods. 2017 Apr;135:63-65
pubmed: 28192156
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014 Nov;80(3):177-80
pubmed: 25241189
J Med Microbiol. 2016 Apr;65(4):320-327
pubmed: 26860329
Anaerobe. 2016 Aug;40:68-72
pubmed: 27282799
Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Mar 19;66(7):987-994
pubmed: 29562266
Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2014 Jul;47(4):447-50
pubmed: 25229284
J Clin Microbiol. 2015 Jun;53(6):1931-4
pubmed: 25788549
Ann Lab Med. 2012 Sep;32(5):355-8
pubmed: 22950071
N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 16;372(16):1539-48
pubmed: 25875259
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2009 Dec;15(12):1053-66
pubmed: 19929972
BMC Microbiol. 2016 Feb 12;16:19
pubmed: 26868647
J Clin Microbiol. 2015 Jan;53(1):332-5
pubmed: 25392360
Pathology. 2016 Aug;48(5):506-8
pubmed: 27311869
J Infect Chemother. 2017 Oct;23(10):674-677
pubmed: 28751156
PLoS One. 2016 Aug 17;11(8):e0161139
pubmed: 27532104
J Clin Microbiol. 2012 Nov;50(11):3765-7
pubmed: 22952270
J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Jun;52(6):1998-2002
pubmed: 24671790
J Clin Microbiol. 2009 Sep;47(9):2952-6
pubmed: 19625481
Clin Biochem. 2017 Jan;50(1-2):84-87
pubmed: 27556286
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018 Jul;91(3):229-232
pubmed: 29567127
Ann Lab Med. 2016 Mar;36(2):131-7
pubmed: 26709260
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 29;9(8):e106102
pubmed: 25170836