A Systematic Literature Review to Determine Gaps in Diagnosing Suspected Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.

IF 3.8 4区 医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY Open Forum Infectious Diseases Pub Date : 2025-01-08 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/ofid/ofaf001
Sarah Y Park, Jason D Goldman, Deborah J Levine, Ghady Haidar
{"title":"A Systematic Literature Review to Determine Gaps in Diagnosing Suspected Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.","authors":"Sarah Y Park, Jason D Goldman, Deborah J Levine, Ghady Haidar","doi":"10.1093/ofid/ofaf001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Improved diagnostic testing (DT) of infections may optimize outcomes for solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR), but a comprehensive analysis is lacking.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic literature review across multiple databases, including EMBASE and MEDLINE(R), of studies published between 1 January 2012-11 June 2022, to examine the evidence behind DT in SOTR. Eligibility criteria included the use of conventional diagnostic methods (culture, biomarkers, directed-polymerase chain reaction [PCR]) or advanced molecular diagnostics (broad-range PCR, metagenomics) to diagnose infections in hospitalized SOTR. Bias was assessed using tools such as the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA 2020.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2362 studies, 72 were eligible and evaluated heterogeneous SOT populations, infections, biospecimens, DT, and outcomes. All studies exhibited bias, mainly in reporting quality. Median study sample size was 102 (range, 11-1307). Culture was the most common DT studied (N = 45 studies, 62.5%), with positive results in a median of 27.7% (range, 0%-88.3%). Biomarkers, PCR, and metagenomics were evaluated in 7, 19, and 3 studies, respectively; only 6 reported sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values. Directed-PCR performed well for targeted pathogens, but only 1 study evaluated broad-range PCR. Metagenomics approaches detected numerous organisms but required clinical adjudication, with too few studies (N = 3) to draw conclusions. Turnaround time was shorter for PCR/metagenomics than conventional diagnostic methods (N = 4 studies, 5.6%). Only 6 studies reported the impact of DT on outcomes like antimicrobial use and length of stay.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified considerable evidence gaps in infection-related DT among SOT, particularly molecular DT, highlighting the need for further research.</p>","PeriodicalId":19517,"journal":{"name":"Open Forum Infectious Diseases","volume":"12 1","pages":"ofaf001"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11773193/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Forum Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaf001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Improved diagnostic testing (DT) of infections may optimize outcomes for solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR), but a comprehensive analysis is lacking.

Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review across multiple databases, including EMBASE and MEDLINE(R), of studies published between 1 January 2012-11 June 2022, to examine the evidence behind DT in SOTR. Eligibility criteria included the use of conventional diagnostic methods (culture, biomarkers, directed-polymerase chain reaction [PCR]) or advanced molecular diagnostics (broad-range PCR, metagenomics) to diagnose infections in hospitalized SOTR. Bias was assessed using tools such as the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA 2020.

Results: Of 2362 studies, 72 were eligible and evaluated heterogeneous SOT populations, infections, biospecimens, DT, and outcomes. All studies exhibited bias, mainly in reporting quality. Median study sample size was 102 (range, 11-1307). Culture was the most common DT studied (N = 45 studies, 62.5%), with positive results in a median of 27.7% (range, 0%-88.3%). Biomarkers, PCR, and metagenomics were evaluated in 7, 19, and 3 studies, respectively; only 6 reported sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values. Directed-PCR performed well for targeted pathogens, but only 1 study evaluated broad-range PCR. Metagenomics approaches detected numerous organisms but required clinical adjudication, with too few studies (N = 3) to draw conclusions. Turnaround time was shorter for PCR/metagenomics than conventional diagnostic methods (N = 4 studies, 5.6%). Only 6 studies reported the impact of DT on outcomes like antimicrobial use and length of stay.

Conclusions: We identified considerable evidence gaps in infection-related DT among SOT, particularly molecular DT, highlighting the need for further research.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
系统性文献综述确定实体器官移植受者疑似感染诊断的空白。
背景:改进的感染诊断检测(DT)可以优化实体器官移植受者(SOTR)的预后,但缺乏全面的分析。方法:我们对2012年1月1日至2022年6月11日期间发表的多个数据库(包括EMBASE和MEDLINE(R))进行了系统的文献综述,以检查SOTR中DT背后的证据。入选标准包括使用常规诊断方法(培养、生物标志物、定向聚合酶链反应[PCR])或先进分子诊断方法(广谱PCR、宏基因组学)诊断住院SOTR感染。使用Cochrane手册和PRISMA 2020等工具评估偏倚。结果:在2362项研究中,72项符合条件,并评估了异质性SOT群体、感染、生物标本、DT和结局。所有的研究都表现出偏倚,主要是在报告质量上。研究中位样本量为102(范围11-1307)。培养是最常见的DT研究(N = 45, 62.5%),阳性结果中位数为27.7%(范围为0%-88.3%)。分别在7项、19项和3项研究中对生物标志物、PCR和宏基因组学进行了评估;只有6个报告了敏感性、特异性和阳性/阴性预测值。定向PCR对目标病原体表现良好,但只有1项研究评估了大范围PCR。宏基因组学方法检测到许多生物体,但需要临床裁决,研究太少(N = 3),无法得出结论。PCR/宏基因组学的周转时间比传统诊断方法短(N = 4项研究,5.6%)。只有6项研究报告了DT对抗菌药物使用和住院时间等结果的影响。结论:我们在SOT中发现了相当大的感染相关DT证据缺口,特别是分子DT,强调了进一步研究的必要性。
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
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
630
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Open Forum Infectious Diseases provides a global forum for the publication of clinical, translational, and basic research findings in a fully open access, online journal environment. The journal reflects the broad diversity of the field of infectious diseases, and focuses on the intersection of biomedical science and clinical practice, with a particular emphasis on knowledge that holds the potential to improve patient care in populations around the world. Fully peer-reviewed, OFID supports the international community of infectious diseases experts by providing a venue for articles that further the understanding of all aspects of infectious diseases.
期刊最新文献
Standardizing Antimicrobial Use in a Resource-Limited Pediatric Surgical Unit in Botswana. Early Combination Antiretroviral Therapy Initiation During Primary HIV Infection Restricts HIV Reservoirs and Gut-Driven Inflammation but Fails to Rewire the Systemic Cytokine Landscape. From Crisis to Control: A Study of Typhoid Conjugate Vaccine Efficacy in Harare, Zimbabwe (2017-2024). Correction to: Prevalence and factors associated with Aspergillus galactomannan antigenemia among People Living with Advanced HIV Disease in Uganda. Assessment of Antimicrobial Transition Errors from Hospitals to Skilled Nursing Facilities.
×
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:604180095
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