Accuracy of molecular diagnostic techniques in patients with a confirmed urine culture: A systematic review and meta-analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.7677Keywords:
PCR, molecular techniques, urinary tract infection, systematic review, accuracyAbstract
Introduction: We aimed to identify the molecular diagnostic techniques available for urinary tract infection (UTI) diagnosis and their accuracy compared to traditional urinary culture.
Methods: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The populations were adult and pediatric patients with confirmed UTI by reference standard urine culture. The index test for the diagnosis of UTI was any molecular diagnostic technique. The primary outcome was the diagnosis of UTI with measures of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR–), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC). The operative characteristics were determined, and a meta-analysis was performed. The evaluation of each included study was performed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool.
Results: We identified 1230 studies with the search strategies. Ultimately, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis, and seven were included for the meta-analysis. Four molecular techniques were identified; however, it was only possible to synthesize the information from two of them. In multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) meta-analysis, overall sensitivity was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73–0.86) and specificity was 0.83 (95% CI 0.52–0.95). For the DOR, the overall result was 21 (95% CI 4.8–95). For reverse transcription (RT)-PCR, sensitivity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.73–0.99) and specificity was 0.59 (95% CI 0.063–0.96). For the DOR, the overall result was 23 (95% CI 1.1–467).
Conclusions: Multiplex PCR and RT-PCR are molecular techniques that might be comparable to standard urine culture for UTI diagnosis. Refinement of these new diagnostic tools will avoid unnecessary antimicrobial therapy and the consequent development of drug-resistant resistant pathogens, as well as improve the ability to identify patients at risk and prevent or minimize sequelae derived from the infection.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.
