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":" ","pages":""},"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
Impact of number of passes and futile reperfusion in basilar artery occlusion acute ischaemic stroke. Randomised controlled trials of dual antiplatelet therapy versus aspirin in patients with stroke or transient ischaemic attack: an updated meta-analysis. Conservative management of advanced chronic kidney disease in primary care setting. Navigating the next lap: 2025 and beyond. Pictorial review of ischaemic hepatitis and its mimics.
×
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