Role of cerebrospinal fluid adenosine deaminase measurement in the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jinghao Nicholas Ngiam, Matthew Chung Yi Koh, Priscillia Lye, Tze Sian Liong, Lizhen Ong, Paul Anantharajah Tambyah, Jyoti Somani
{"title":"Role of cerebrospinal fluid adenosine deaminase measurement in the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Jinghao Nicholas Ngiam, Matthew Chung Yi Koh, Priscillia Lye, Tze Sian Liong, Lizhen Ong, Paul Anantharajah Tambyah, Jyoti Somani","doi":"10.4103/singaporemedj.SMJ-2023-155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Tuberculous meningitis (TBM) can be difficult to diagnose. Elevated cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) adenosine deaminase (ADA) is often seen in TBM, but its reliability has been questioned. A previous meta-analysis in 2017 had demonstrated the diagnostic utility of CSF ADA in TBM versus non-TBM. We sought to update this meta-analysis with more recent studies, to determine whether CSF ADA could be used to aid in the early recognition of TBM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic searches were performed in PubMed and Scopus on studies published from 2016 to 2022. Ten additional studies were identified and added to 20 studies (from 2000 to 2016) from a previous meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random effects method, estimating the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for elevated CSF ADA in the diagnosis of TBM.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 30 studies included, 16/30 (53.3%) used the Giusti method for measuring ADA. Fourteen (46.7%) studies used an ADA cut-off of 10 IU/L, and 11 (36.7%) studies used an even lower cut-off. The pooled DOR for elevated CSF ADA in the diagnosis of TBM was 45.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 31.96-64.47, I2 = 44%). When only studies using the Giusti method were considered, DOR was 44.21 (95% CI 28.37-68.91, I2 = 40%). Among the studies that used a cut-off of 10 IU/L, DOR was 58.09 (95% CI 33.76-99.94, I2 = 41%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Studies remain heterogeneous but demonstrate that CSF ADA can differentiate TBM from non-TBM. In line with most studies, CSF ADA >10 IU/L supports the diagnosis of TBM in a patient with compatible symptoms and high-risk epidemiology.</p>","PeriodicalId":94289,"journal":{"name":"Singapore medical journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Singapore medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/singaporemedj.SMJ-2023-155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Tuberculous meningitis (TBM) can be difficult to diagnose. Elevated cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) adenosine deaminase (ADA) is often seen in TBM, but its reliability has been questioned. A previous meta-analysis in 2017 had demonstrated the diagnostic utility of CSF ADA in TBM versus non-TBM. We sought to update this meta-analysis with more recent studies, to determine whether CSF ADA could be used to aid in the early recognition of TBM.

Methods: Electronic searches were performed in PubMed and Scopus on studies published from 2016 to 2022. Ten additional studies were identified and added to 20 studies (from 2000 to 2016) from a previous meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random effects method, estimating the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for elevated CSF ADA in the diagnosis of TBM.

Results: Of the 30 studies included, 16/30 (53.3%) used the Giusti method for measuring ADA. Fourteen (46.7%) studies used an ADA cut-off of 10 IU/L, and 11 (36.7%) studies used an even lower cut-off. The pooled DOR for elevated CSF ADA in the diagnosis of TBM was 45.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 31.96-64.47, I2 = 44%). When only studies using the Giusti method were considered, DOR was 44.21 (95% CI 28.37-68.91, I2 = 40%). Among the studies that used a cut-off of 10 IU/L, DOR was 58.09 (95% CI 33.76-99.94, I2 = 41%).

Conclusion: Studies remain heterogeneous but demonstrate that CSF ADA can differentiate TBM from non-TBM. In line with most studies, CSF ADA >10 IU/L supports the diagnosis of TBM in a patient with compatible symptoms and high-risk epidemiology.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脑脊液腺苷脱氨酶测定在结核性脑膜炎诊断中的作用:最新系统综述和荟萃分析。
介绍:结核性脑膜炎(TBM)很难诊断。脑脊液(CSF)腺苷脱氨酶(ADA)升高经常见于TBM,但其可靠性一直受到质疑。之前在 2017 年进行的一项荟萃分析表明了 CSF ADA 在 TBM 与非 TBM 中的诊断效用。我们试图用更多的最新研究来更新这项荟萃分析,以确定 CSF ADA 是否可用于帮助早期识别 TBM:在 PubMed 和 Scopus 上对 2016 年至 2022 年发表的研究进行了电子检索。在之前的一项荟萃分析的20项研究(2000年至2016年)的基础上,又确定了10项研究。采用随机效应法进行荟萃分析,估算TBM诊断中CSF ADA升高的集合诊断几率比(DOR):在纳入的 30 项研究中,16/30(53.3%)采用朱斯蒂法测量 ADA。14项(46.7%)研究使用的 ADA 临界值为 10 IU/L,11 项(36.7%)研究使用的临界值更低。诊断 TBM 时 CSF ADA 升高的汇总 DOR 为 45.40(95% 置信区间 [CI] 31.96-64.47,I2 = 44%)。如果只考虑使用朱斯蒂方法的研究,DOR 为 44.21(95% 置信区间 28.37-68.91,I2 = 40%)。在使用 10 IU/L 临界值的研究中,DOR 为 58.09(95% CI 33.76-99.94,I2 = 41%):结论:研究结果仍不尽相同,但证明 CSF ADA 可以区分 TBM 和非 TBM。与大多数研究结果一致的是,CSF ADA >10 IU/L 可支持对症状符合且流行病学风险较高的患者进行 TBM 诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Determinants of decision-making in biopsy of PI-RADS 3 transition zone lesions. Femoral and tibial phenotypes of varus alignment in a Southeast Asian arthritic population: a descriptive study. Mandating manganese biomonitoring: a timely re-evaluation of policies? Meniscus root tears: what is the hype? Utility of photoplethysmography in detecting elevated blood glucose among non-diabetics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1