Molecular assays for the diagnosis of sepsis in neonates: a diagnostic test accuracy review.

IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2025-03-19 DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD011926.pub3
Thomas H Dierikx, Douwe H Visser, Tim de Meij, James Versalovic, Mariska Mg Leeflang, Chris Cooper, Mohan Pammi
{"title":"Molecular assays for the diagnosis of sepsis in neonates: a diagnostic test accuracy review.","authors":"Thomas H Dierikx, Douwe H Visser, Tim de Meij, James Versalovic, Mariska Mg Leeflang, Chris Cooper, Mohan Pammi","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD011926.pub3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Microbial cultures for diagnosis of neonatal sepsis have low sensitivity and reporting delay. Advances in molecular microbiology have fostered new molecular assays that are rapid and may improve neonatal outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the diagnostic accuracy of various molecular methods for the diagnosis of culture-positive bacterial and fungal sepsis in neonates and to explore heterogeneity among studies by analyzing subgroups classified by gestational age and type of sepsis onset and compare molecular tests with one another.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries in August 2023. We checked reference lists of included studies and systematic reviews where subject matter related to the intervention or population examined in this review.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included studies that were prospective or retrospective, cohort or cross-sectional design, which evaluated molecular assays (index test) in neonates with suspected sepsis in comparison with microbial cultures (reference standard).</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. We performed meta-analyses using the bivariate model and entered data into Review Manager.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>Seventy-four studies were eligible for inclusion, of which 68 studies provided data for meta-analysis. The total number of participants was 14,309 (1328 infants who were culture-positive and 12,981 infants who were culture-negative) from 68 studies that were included in the meta-analysis. The summary estimate of sensitivity was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.95) and of specificity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.92) (low-certainty evidence). We explored heterogeneity by subgroup analyses of type of test, gestational age, type of sepsis onset and prevalence of sepsis. We found insufficient explanations for the heterogeneity (low- to very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analyses including studies that analyzed blood samples, using good methodology and those that did not use multiple samples from the same participant revealed similar results (low-certainty evidence).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Molecular assays have the advantage of producing rapid results and have moderate diagnostic accuracy. Molecular assays may prevent overuse of antibiotics in neonates with suspected sepsis. The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these molecular assays should be evaluated using randomized trials comparing molecular assays as an add-on test versus conventional methods without the add-on test in neonates with suspected sepsis.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"3 ","pages":"CD011926"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011926.pub3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Microbial cultures for diagnosis of neonatal sepsis have low sensitivity and reporting delay. Advances in molecular microbiology have fostered new molecular assays that are rapid and may improve neonatal outcomes.

Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of various molecular methods for the diagnosis of culture-positive bacterial and fungal sepsis in neonates and to explore heterogeneity among studies by analyzing subgroups classified by gestational age and type of sepsis onset and compare molecular tests with one another.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries in August 2023. We checked reference lists of included studies and systematic reviews where subject matter related to the intervention or population examined in this review.

Selection criteria: We included studies that were prospective or retrospective, cohort or cross-sectional design, which evaluated molecular assays (index test) in neonates with suspected sepsis in comparison with microbial cultures (reference standard).

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. We performed meta-analyses using the bivariate model and entered data into Review Manager.

Main results: Seventy-four studies were eligible for inclusion, of which 68 studies provided data for meta-analysis. The total number of participants was 14,309 (1328 infants who were culture-positive and 12,981 infants who were culture-negative) from 68 studies that were included in the meta-analysis. The summary estimate of sensitivity was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.95) and of specificity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.92) (low-certainty evidence). We explored heterogeneity by subgroup analyses of type of test, gestational age, type of sepsis onset and prevalence of sepsis. We found insufficient explanations for the heterogeneity (low- to very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analyses including studies that analyzed blood samples, using good methodology and those that did not use multiple samples from the same participant revealed similar results (low-certainty evidence).

Authors' conclusions: Molecular assays have the advantage of producing rapid results and have moderate diagnostic accuracy. Molecular assays may prevent overuse of antibiotics in neonates with suspected sepsis. The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these molecular assays should be evaluated using randomized trials comparing molecular assays as an add-on test versus conventional methods without the add-on test in neonates with suspected sepsis.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
期刊最新文献
Prognosis of surgically resected clinical stage 1A non-small cell lung cancers manifesting as a subsolid nodule on computed tomography including pure ground glass nodules. Red blood cell transfusion management for people undergoing cardiac surgery for congenital heart disease. Molecular assays for the diagnosis of sepsis in neonates: a diagnostic test accuracy review. Statins for preventing preeclampsia. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for acute renal colic.
×
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