A Systematic Literature Review to Determine Gaps in Diagnosing Suspected Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.

IF 3.8 4区 医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Pub Date : 2025-01-08 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/ofid/ofaf001
Sarah Y Park, Jason D Goldman, Deborah J Levine, Ghady Haidar
{"title":"A Systematic Literature Review to Determine Gaps in Diagnosing Suspected Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.","authors":"Sarah Y Park, Jason D Goldman, Deborah J Levine, Ghady Haidar","doi":"10.1093/ofid/ofaf001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Improved diagnostic testing (DT) of infections may optimize outcomes for solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR), but a comprehensive analysis is lacking.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic literature review across multiple databases, including EMBASE and MEDLINE(R), of studies published between 1 January 2012-11 June 2022, to examine the evidence behind DT in SOTR. Eligibility criteria included the use of conventional diagnostic methods (culture, biomarkers, directed-polymerase chain reaction [PCR]) or advanced molecular diagnostics (broad-range PCR, metagenomics) to diagnose infections in hospitalized SOTR. Bias was assessed using tools such as the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA 2020.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2362 studies, 72 were eligible and evaluated heterogeneous SOT populations, infections, biospecimens, DT, and outcomes. All studies exhibited bias, mainly in reporting quality. Median study sample size was 102 (range, 11-1307). Culture was the most common DT studied (N = 45 studies, 62.5%), with positive results in a median of 27.7% (range, 0%-88.3%). Biomarkers, PCR, and metagenomics were evaluated in 7, 19, and 3 studies, respectively; only 6 reported sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values. Directed-PCR performed well for targeted pathogens, but only 1 study evaluated broad-range PCR. Metagenomics approaches detected numerous organisms but required clinical adjudication, with too few studies (N = 3) to draw conclusions. Turnaround time was shorter for PCR/metagenomics than conventional diagnostic methods (N = 4 studies, 5.6%). Only 6 studies reported the impact of DT on outcomes like antimicrobial use and length of stay.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identified considerable evidence gaps in infection-related DT among SOT, particularly molecular DT, highlighting the need for further research.</p>","PeriodicalId":19517,"journal":{"name":"Open Forum Infectious Diseases","volume":"12 1","pages":"ofaf001"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11773193/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Forum Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaf001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Improved diagnostic testing (DT) of infections may optimize outcomes for solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR), but a comprehensive analysis is lacking.

Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review across multiple databases, including EMBASE and MEDLINE(R), of studies published between 1 January 2012-11 June 2022, to examine the evidence behind DT in SOTR. Eligibility criteria included the use of conventional diagnostic methods (culture, biomarkers, directed-polymerase chain reaction [PCR]) or advanced molecular diagnostics (broad-range PCR, metagenomics) to diagnose infections in hospitalized SOTR. Bias was assessed using tools such as the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA 2020.

Results: Of 2362 studies, 72 were eligible and evaluated heterogeneous SOT populations, infections, biospecimens, DT, and outcomes. All studies exhibited bias, mainly in reporting quality. Median study sample size was 102 (range, 11-1307). Culture was the most common DT studied (N = 45 studies, 62.5%), with positive results in a median of 27.7% (range, 0%-88.3%). Biomarkers, PCR, and metagenomics were evaluated in 7, 19, and 3 studies, respectively; only 6 reported sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values. Directed-PCR performed well for targeted pathogens, but only 1 study evaluated broad-range PCR. Metagenomics approaches detected numerous organisms but required clinical adjudication, with too few studies (N = 3) to draw conclusions. Turnaround time was shorter for PCR/metagenomics than conventional diagnostic methods (N = 4 studies, 5.6%). Only 6 studies reported the impact of DT on outcomes like antimicrobial use and length of stay.

Conclusions: We identified considerable evidence gaps in infection-related DT among SOT, particularly molecular DT, highlighting the need for further research.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
630
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Open Forum Infectious Diseases provides a global forum for the publication of clinical, translational, and basic research findings in a fully open access, online journal environment. The journal reflects the broad diversity of the field of infectious diseases, and focuses on the intersection of biomedical science and clinical practice, with a particular emphasis on knowledge that holds the potential to improve patient care in populations around the world. Fully peer-reviewed, OFID supports the international community of infectious diseases experts by providing a venue for articles that further the understanding of all aspects of infectious diseases.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信