Bwambale Jonani, Emmanuel Charles Kasule, Herman Roman Bwire, Gerald Mboowa
{"title":"非洲念珠菌的报告患病率和诊断方法的比较:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Bwambale Jonani, Emmanuel Charles Kasule, Herman Roman Bwire, Gerald Mboowa","doi":"10.1186/s41512-024-00180-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated reported prevalence and diagnostic methods for identifying Candida africana, an opportunistic yeast associated with vaginal and oral candidiasis. A comprehensive literature search yielded 53 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, 2 of which were case studies. The pooled prevalence of C. africana among 20,571 participants was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.7-1.3%), with significant heterogeneity observed (I<sup>2</sup> = 79%, p < 0.01). Subgroup analyses revealed regional variations, with North America showing the highest prevalence (4.6%, 95% CI: 1.8-11.2%). The majority 84.52% of the C. africana have been isolated from vaginal samples, 8.37% from oral samples, 3.77% from urine, 2.09% from glans penis swabs, and 0.42% from rectal swabs, nasal swabs, and respiratory tract expectorations respectively. No C. africana has been isolated from nail samples. Hyphal wall protein 1 gene PCR was the most used diagnostic method for identifying C. africana. It has been used to identify 70% of the isolates. A comparison of methods revealed that the Vitek-2 system consistently failed to differentiate C. africana from Candida albicans, whereas MALDI-TOF misidentified several isolates compared with HWP1 PCR. Factors beyond diagnostic methodology may influence C. africana detection rates. We highlight the importance of adapting molecular methods for resource-limited settings or developing equally accurate but more accessible alternatives for the identification and differentiation of highly similar and cryptic Candida species such as C. africana.</p>","PeriodicalId":72800,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","volume":"8 1","pages":"16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11619109/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reported prevalence and comparison of diagnostic approaches for Candida africana: a systematic review with meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Bwambale Jonani, Emmanuel Charles Kasule, Herman Roman Bwire, Gerald Mboowa\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41512-024-00180-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated reported prevalence and diagnostic methods for identifying Candida africana, an opportunistic yeast associated with vaginal and oral candidiasis. A comprehensive literature search yielded 53 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, 2 of which were case studies. The pooled prevalence of C. africana among 20,571 participants was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.7-1.3%), with significant heterogeneity observed (I<sup>2</sup> = 79%, p < 0.01). Subgroup analyses revealed regional variations, with North America showing the highest prevalence (4.6%, 95% CI: 1.8-11.2%). The majority 84.52% of the C. africana have been isolated from vaginal samples, 8.37% from oral samples, 3.77% from urine, 2.09% from glans penis swabs, and 0.42% from rectal swabs, nasal swabs, and respiratory tract expectorations respectively. No C. africana has been isolated from nail samples. Hyphal wall protein 1 gene PCR was the most used diagnostic method for identifying C. africana. It has been used to identify 70% of the isolates. A comparison of methods revealed that the Vitek-2 system consistently failed to differentiate C. africana from Candida albicans, whereas MALDI-TOF misidentified several isolates compared with HWP1 PCR. Factors beyond diagnostic methodology may influence C. africana detection rates. We highlight the importance of adapting molecular methods for resource-limited settings or developing equally accurate but more accessible alternatives for the identification and differentiation of highly similar and cryptic Candida species such as C. africana.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72800,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostic and prognostic research\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11619109/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostic and prognostic research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-024-00180-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-024-00180-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了非洲念珠菌(一种与阴道和口腔念珠菌病相关的机会性酵母菌)的报告患病率和诊断方法。综合文献检索得到53项符合纳入标准的研究,其中2项为个案研究。在20,571名参与者中,非洲卷虫的总患病率为0.9% (95% CI: 0.7-1.3%),存在显著的异质性(I2 = 79%, p
Reported prevalence and comparison of diagnostic approaches for Candida africana: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated reported prevalence and diagnostic methods for identifying Candida africana, an opportunistic yeast associated with vaginal and oral candidiasis. A comprehensive literature search yielded 53 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, 2 of which were case studies. The pooled prevalence of C. africana among 20,571 participants was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.7-1.3%), with significant heterogeneity observed (I2 = 79%, p < 0.01). Subgroup analyses revealed regional variations, with North America showing the highest prevalence (4.6%, 95% CI: 1.8-11.2%). The majority 84.52% of the C. africana have been isolated from vaginal samples, 8.37% from oral samples, 3.77% from urine, 2.09% from glans penis swabs, and 0.42% from rectal swabs, nasal swabs, and respiratory tract expectorations respectively. No C. africana has been isolated from nail samples. Hyphal wall protein 1 gene PCR was the most used diagnostic method for identifying C. africana. It has been used to identify 70% of the isolates. A comparison of methods revealed that the Vitek-2 system consistently failed to differentiate C. africana from Candida albicans, whereas MALDI-TOF misidentified several isolates compared with HWP1 PCR. Factors beyond diagnostic methodology may influence C. africana detection rates. We highlight the importance of adapting molecular methods for resource-limited settings or developing equally accurate but more accessible alternatives for the identification and differentiation of highly similar and cryptic Candida species such as C. africana.