Diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for tuberculous pericarditis: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and CapitalBio Mycobacterium RT-PCR Detection Assay for Tuberculous Pericarditis

Purpose

We evaluated CapitalBio Mycobacterium RT-PCR assay diagnosing tuberculous pericarditis (TBP), performed a head-to-head comparison with Xpert MTB/RIF, and assessed the impact of a parallel test (positive result for either of these two tests).

Methods

We reviewed suspected TBP patients with Xpert MTB/RIF, CapitalBio Mycobacterium RT-PCR assay, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) culture. We analyzed sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC).

Results

Seventy-four patients were included. Overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC of CapitalBio Mycobacterium RT-PCR assay compared with culture were 50%, 91.1%, 64.3%, 85%, and 0.71, respectively. Overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC of Xpert MTB/RIF for TBP were 61.1%, 91.1%, 68.8%, 87.9%, and 0.76. Parallel test values were 72.2%, 91.1%, 72.2%, 91.1%, and 0.82. The diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF was higher than CapitalBio Mycobacterium RT-PCR assay but was not significant (P > 0.05). The parallel test could improve diagnostic accuracy, but it was not significant compared to single tests (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

CapitalBio Mycobacterium RT-PCR assay had a moderate diagnostic accuracy, similar to Xpert MTB/RIF. The parallel test maximized diagnostic efficacy, but differences were not significant. CapitalBio Mycobacterium RT-PCR assay and Xpert MTB/RIF for TBP could be an initial option for early diagnosis.

Diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for tuberculous pericarditis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculous pericarditis (TBP).

Methods

We searched relevant databases for Xpert MTB/RIF for TBP diagnosis until April 2021 and screened eligible studies for study inclusion. We evaluated the effectiveness of Xpert MTB/RIF when the composite reference standard (CRS) and mycobacterial culture were the gold standards, respectively. We performed meta-analyses using a bivariate random-effects model, and when the heterogeneity was obvious, the source of heterogeneity was further discussed.

Results

We included seven independent studies comparing Xpert MTB/RIF with the CRS and six studies comparing it with culture. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of Xpert MTB/RIF were 65% (95% confidence interval, 59–72%), 99% (97–100%), and 0.99 (0.97–0.99) as compared with the CRS, respectively, and 75% (53–88%), 99% (90–100%), and 0.94 (0.92–0.96) as compared with culture, respectively. There was no significant heterogeneity between studies when CRS was the gold standard, whereas heterogeneity was evident when culture was the gold standard.

Conclusions

The sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF for diagnosing TBP was moderate and the specificity was good; thus, Xpert MTB/RIF can be used in the initial diagnosis of TBP.