We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Diagnostic test accuracy of antigenaemia assay for PCR-proven cytomegalovirus infection-systematic review and meta-analysis.
Clinical Microbiology and Infection 2017 December
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess diagnostic test accuracy of antigenaemia assay for PCR-proven cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection.
METHODS: We systematically searched studies that provide data both on sensitivity and specificity of the CMV antigenaemia assay using the PCR as the reference standard. Adults, children, infants, individuals who were immunocompromised for any reason, symptomatic patients and asymptomatic individuals were all included. A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics model was used for diagnostic meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed by Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Protocol registration identification is CRD42016035892.
RESULTS: We identified 75 eligible articles including 9058 CMV PCR-positive individuals and 22 232 PCR-negative individuals. The diagnostic odds ratio for positive antigenaemia was 30 (95% CI 24-38, I2 = 28%) and the area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 (95% CI 0.83-0.88). The summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 0.65 (95% CI 0.59-0.70) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.93-0.95), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio of 10.9 (95% CI 8.5-14.0) suggested that a positive result from the antigenaemia assay greatly increased the probability of PCR-proven CMV infection, but a negative likelihood ratio of 0.38 (95% CI 0.32-0.44) indicated that a negative result led to a small decrease in the probability of PCR-proven CMV infection. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses replicated these results.
CONCLUSIONS: The antigenaemia assay overlooked 35% of PCR-proven CMV infections; hence, a negative result of an antigenaemia assay could not rule out a CMV infection.
METHODS: We systematically searched studies that provide data both on sensitivity and specificity of the CMV antigenaemia assay using the PCR as the reference standard. Adults, children, infants, individuals who were immunocompromised for any reason, symptomatic patients and asymptomatic individuals were all included. A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics model was used for diagnostic meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed by Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Protocol registration identification is CRD42016035892.
RESULTS: We identified 75 eligible articles including 9058 CMV PCR-positive individuals and 22 232 PCR-negative individuals. The diagnostic odds ratio for positive antigenaemia was 30 (95% CI 24-38, I2 = 28%) and the area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 (95% CI 0.83-0.88). The summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 0.65 (95% CI 0.59-0.70) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.93-0.95), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio of 10.9 (95% CI 8.5-14.0) suggested that a positive result from the antigenaemia assay greatly increased the probability of PCR-proven CMV infection, but a negative likelihood ratio of 0.38 (95% CI 0.32-0.44) indicated that a negative result led to a small decrease in the probability of PCR-proven CMV infection. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses replicated these results.
CONCLUSIONS: The antigenaemia assay overlooked 35% of PCR-proven CMV infections; hence, a negative result of an antigenaemia assay could not rule out a CMV infection.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app