↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) in urine for genitourinary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) in urine for genitourinary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2476-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos Altez-Fernandez, Victor Ortiz, Majid Mirzazadeh, Luis Zegarra, Carlos Seas, Cesar Ugarte-Gil

Abstract

Genitourinary tuberculosis is the third most common form of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Diagnosis is difficult because of unspecific clinical manifestations and low accuracy of conventional tests. Unfortunately, the delayed diagnosis impacts the urinary tract severely. Nucleic acid amplification tests yield fast results, and among these, new technologies can also detect drug resistance. There is lack of consensus regarding the use of these tests in genitourinary tuberculosis; we therefore aimed to assess the accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests in the diagnosis of genitourinary tuberculosis and to evaluate the heterogeneity between studies. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of research articles comparing the accuracy of a reference standard and a nucleic acid amplification test for diagnosis of urinary tract tuberculosis. We searched Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, LILACS, Cochrane Library, and Scopus for articles published between Jan 1, 1990, and Apr 14, 2016. Two investigators identified eligible articles and extracted data for individual study sites. We analyzed data in groups with the same index test. Then, we generated pooled summary estimates (95% CIs) for sensitivity and specificity by use of random-effects meta-analysis when studies were not heterogeneous. We identified eleven relevant studies from ten articles, giving information on PCR, LCR and Xpert MTB/RIF tests. All PCR studies were "in-house" tests, with different gene targets and had several quality concerns therefore we did not proceed with a pooled analysis. Only one study used LCR. Xpert studies were of good quality and not heterogeneous, pooled sensitivity was 0·87 (0·66-0·96) and specificity was 0·91 (0·84-0·95). PCR studies were highly heterogeneous. Among Xpert MTB/RIF studies, specificity was favorable with an acceptable confidence interval, however new studies can update meta-analysis and get more precise estimates. Further high-quality studies are urgently needed to improve diagnosis of genitourinary tuberculosis. PROSPERO CRD42016039020.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 4 6%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 24 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2017.
All research outputs
#4,485,985
of 16,211,558 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,353
of 5,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,435
of 273,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,211,558 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them