Dubois C, Smeesters PR, Refes Y, Levy C, Bidet P, Cohen R, Chalumeau M, Toubiana J, Cohen JF. Diagnostic accuracy of rapid nucleic acid tests for group A streptococcal pharyngitis: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Clin Microbiol Infect 2021;
27:1736-1745. [PMID:
33964409 DOI:
10.1016/j.cmi.2021.04.021]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/21/2021] [Revised: 04/15/2021] [Accepted: 04/19/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Acute pharyngitis is one of the most common conditions in outpatient settings and an important source of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) offer diagnosis of group A streptococcus at the point of care but have limited sensitivity. Rapid nucleic acid tests (RNATs) are now available; a systematic review of their accuracy is lacking.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the accuracy of RNATs in patients with pharyngitis; to explore test-level and study-level factors that could explain variability in accuracy; and to compare the accuracy of RNATs with that of RADTs.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science (1990-2020).
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Cross-sectional studies and randomized trials.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients with pharyngitis.
INDEX TEST/S AND REFERENCE STANDARDS
RNAT commercial kits compared with throat culture.
METHODS
We assessed risk of bias and applicability using QUADAS-2. We performed meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity using the bivariate random-effects model. Variability was explored by subgroup analyses and meta-regression.
RESULTS
We included 38 studies (46 test evaluations; 17 411 test results). RNATs were most often performed in a laboratory. The overall methodological quality of primary studies was uncertain because of incomplete reporting. RNATs had a summary sensitivity of 97.5% (95% CI 96.2%-98.3%) and a summary specificity of 95.1% (95% CI 93.6%-96.3%). There was low variability in estimates across studies. Variability in sensitivity and specificity was partially explained by test type (p < 0.05 for both). Sensitivity analyses limited to studies with low risk of bias showed robust accuracy estimates. RNATs were more sensitive than RADTs (13 studies; 96.8% versus 82.3%, p 0.004); there was no difference in specificity (p 0.92).
CONCLUSIONS
The high diagnostic accuracy of RNATs may allow their use as stand-alone tests to diagnose group A streptococcus pharyngitis. Based on direct comparisons, RNATs have greater sensitivity than RADTs and equal specificity. Further studies should evaluate RNATs in point-of-care settings.
Collapse