Evidence Hub

Comparison of polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing with conventional urine culture for the diagnosis of urinary tract infections: A meta-analysis

Meng Zhao, Shuang Qi, Yinuo Sun, Xue Zheng

Open Medicine, 2024

1,291 participants · 13 citations

Abstract

Abstract The limitations of conventional urine culture methods can be avoided by using culture-independent approaches like polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and next-generation sequencing (NGS). However, the efficacy of these approaches in this setting is still subject to contention. PRISMA-compliant searches were performed on MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Sciences, and the Cochrane Database until March 2023. The included articles compared PCR or NGS to conventional urine culture for the detection of urinary tract infections (UTIs). RevMan performed meta-analysis, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool assessed study quality. A total of 10 selected studies that involved 1,291 individuals were included in this meta-analysis. The study found that PCR has a 99% sensitivity and a 94% specificity for diagnosing UTIs. Furthermore, NGS was shown to have a sensitivity of 90% for identifying UTIs and a specificity of 86%. The odds ratio (OR) for PCR to detect Gram-positive bacteria is 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41–0.61), while the OR for NGS to detect Gram-negative bacteria is 0.23 [95% CI 0.09–0.59]. UTIs are typically caused by Gram-negative bacteria like Escherichia coli and Gram-positive bacteria like Staphylococci and Streptococci. PCR and NGS are reliable, culture-free molecular diagnostic methods that, despite being expensive, are essential for UTI diagnosis and prevention due to their high sensitivity and specificity.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,291 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free