George Edwards, Anna Seeley, Adam Carter, Maia Patrick Smith, Elizabeth LA Cross, Kathryn Hughes, Ann Van den Bruel, Martin J Llewelyn, Jan Y Verbakel, Gail Hayward
{"title":"新型尿液生物标志物诊断尿路感染的准确性如何?","authors":"George Edwards, Anna Seeley, Adam Carter, Maia Patrick Smith, Elizabeth LA Cross, Kathryn Hughes, Ann Van den Bruel, Martin J Llewelyn, Jan Y Verbakel, Gail Hayward","doi":"10.1177/11772719221144459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Urinary tract infection (UTI) affects half of women at least once in their lifetime. Current diagnosis involves urinary dipstick and urine culture, yet both methods have modest diagnostic accuracy, and cannot support decision-making in patient populations with high prevalence of asymptomatic bacteriuria, such as older adults. Detecting biomarkers of host response in the urine of hosts has the potential to improve diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To synthesise the evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of novel biomarkers for UTI, and of their ability to differentiate UTI from asymptomatic bacteriuria.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review.</p><p><strong>Data sources and methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science for studies of novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of UTI. We excluded studies assessing biomarkers included in urine dipsticks as these have been well described previously. We included studies of adult patients (≥16 years) with a suspected or confirmed urinary tract infection using microscopy and culture as the reference standard. We excluded studies using clinical signs and symptoms, or urine dipstick only as a reference standard. Quality appraisal was performed using QUADAS-2. We summarised our data using point estimates and data accuracy statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 37 studies on 4009 adults measuring 66 biomarkers. Study quality was limited by case-control design and study size; only 4 included studies had a prospective cohort design. IL-6 and IL-8 were the most studied biomarkers. We found plausible evidence to suggest that IL-8, IL-6, GRO-a, sTNF-1, sTNF-2 and MCR may benefit from more rigorous evaluation of their potential diagnostic value for UTI.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of any novel biomarker for UTI diagnosis at present. Further evaluation of the more promising candidates, is needed before they can be recommended for clinical use.</p>","PeriodicalId":47060,"journal":{"name":"Biomarker Insights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9902898/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is the Diagnostic Accuracy of Novel Urine Biomarkers for Urinary Tract Infection?\",\"authors\":\"George Edwards, Anna Seeley, Adam Carter, Maia Patrick Smith, Elizabeth LA Cross, Kathryn Hughes, Ann Van den Bruel, Martin J Llewelyn, Jan Y Verbakel, Gail Hayward\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11772719221144459\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Urinary tract infection (UTI) affects half of women at least once in their lifetime. Current diagnosis involves urinary dipstick and urine culture, yet both methods have modest diagnostic accuracy, and cannot support decision-making in patient populations with high prevalence of asymptomatic bacteriuria, such as older adults. Detecting biomarkers of host response in the urine of hosts has the potential to improve diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To synthesise the evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of novel biomarkers for UTI, and of their ability to differentiate UTI from asymptomatic bacteriuria.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review.</p><p><strong>Data sources and methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science for studies of novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of UTI. We excluded studies assessing biomarkers included in urine dipsticks as these have been well described previously. We included studies of adult patients (≥16 years) with a suspected or confirmed urinary tract infection using microscopy and culture as the reference standard. We excluded studies using clinical signs and symptoms, or urine dipstick only as a reference standard. Quality appraisal was performed using QUADAS-2. We summarised our data using point estimates and data accuracy statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 37 studies on 4009 adults measuring 66 biomarkers. Study quality was limited by case-control design and study size; only 4 included studies had a prospective cohort design. IL-6 and IL-8 were the most studied biomarkers. We found plausible evidence to suggest that IL-8, IL-6, GRO-a, sTNF-1, sTNF-2 and MCR may benefit from more rigorous evaluation of their potential diagnostic value for UTI.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of any novel biomarker for UTI diagnosis at present. Further evaluation of the more promising candidates, is needed before they can be recommended for clinical use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biomarker Insights\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9902898/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biomarker Insights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11772719221144459\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomarker Insights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11772719221144459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
摘要
背景:尿路感染(UTI)影响一半的妇女在其一生中至少一次。目前的诊断包括尿试纸和尿培养,但这两种方法的诊断准确性都不高,不能支持无症状细菌尿高发的患者群体(如老年人)的决策。在宿主尿液中检测宿主反应的生物标志物有可能改善诊断。目的:综合新的UTI生物标志物诊断准确性的证据,以及它们区分UTI和无症状细菌尿的能力。设计:系统回顾。数据来源和方法:检索MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL和Web of Science,寻找诊断UTI的新型生物标志物。我们排除了评估尿试纸中包含的生物标志物的研究,因为这些研究之前已经被很好地描述过。我们纳入了用显微镜和培养作为参考标准的疑似或确诊尿路感染的成人患者(≥16岁)的研究。我们排除了将临床体征和症状或尿液试纸仅作为参考标准的研究。采用QUADAS-2进行质量评价。我们使用点估计和数据准确性统计来总结我们的数据。结果:我们纳入了37项研究,涉及4009名成年人,测量了66种生物标志物。研究质量受到病例对照设计和研究规模的限制;只有4项纳入的研究采用前瞻性队列设计。IL-6和IL-8是研究最多的生物标志物。我们发现可信的证据表明,对IL-8、IL-6、GRO-a、sTNF-1、sTNF-2和MCR的潜在诊断价值进行更严格的评估可能会受益。结论:目前没有足够的证据推荐使用任何新的生物标志物来诊断尿路感染。在推荐临床使用之前,需要对更有希望的候选药物进行进一步评估。
What is the Diagnostic Accuracy of Novel Urine Biomarkers for Urinary Tract Infection?
Background: Urinary tract infection (UTI) affects half of women at least once in their lifetime. Current diagnosis involves urinary dipstick and urine culture, yet both methods have modest diagnostic accuracy, and cannot support decision-making in patient populations with high prevalence of asymptomatic bacteriuria, such as older adults. Detecting biomarkers of host response in the urine of hosts has the potential to improve diagnosis.
Objectives: To synthesise the evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of novel biomarkers for UTI, and of their ability to differentiate UTI from asymptomatic bacteriuria.
Design: A systematic review.
Data sources and methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science for studies of novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of UTI. We excluded studies assessing biomarkers included in urine dipsticks as these have been well described previously. We included studies of adult patients (≥16 years) with a suspected or confirmed urinary tract infection using microscopy and culture as the reference standard. We excluded studies using clinical signs and symptoms, or urine dipstick only as a reference standard. Quality appraisal was performed using QUADAS-2. We summarised our data using point estimates and data accuracy statistics.
Results: We included 37 studies on 4009 adults measuring 66 biomarkers. Study quality was limited by case-control design and study size; only 4 included studies had a prospective cohort design. IL-6 and IL-8 were the most studied biomarkers. We found plausible evidence to suggest that IL-8, IL-6, GRO-a, sTNF-1, sTNF-2 and MCR may benefit from more rigorous evaluation of their potential diagnostic value for UTI.
Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of any novel biomarker for UTI diagnosis at present. Further evaluation of the more promising candidates, is needed before they can be recommended for clinical use.