Evidence Hub

Polymerase Chain Reaction on Respiratory Tract Specimens of Immunocompromised Patients to Diagnose Pneumocystis Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Lottie Brown, R. Rautemaa-Richardson, C. Mengoli, Alexandre Alanio, Rosemary A. Barnes, Stéphane Bretagne, S. Chen, Catherine Cordonnier et al.

Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2024

7,835 participants · 36 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background This meta-analysis examines the comparative diagnostic performance of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) on different respiratory tract samples, in both human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and non-HIV populations. Methods A total of 55 articles met inclusion criteria, including 11 434 PCR assays on respiratory specimens from 7835 patients at risk of PCP. QUADAS-2 tool indicated low risk of bias across all studies. Using a bivariate and random-effects meta-regression analysis, the diagnostic performance of PCR against the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer–Mycoses Study Group definition of proven PCP was examined. Results Quantitative PCR (qPCR) on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid provided the highest pooled sensitivity of 98.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 96.8%–99.5%), adequate specificity of 89.3% (95% CI, 84.4%–92.7%), negative likelihood ratio (LR−) of 0.014, and positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 9.19. qPCR on induced sputum provided similarly high sensitivity of 99.0% (95% CI, 94.4%–99.3%) but a reduced specificity of 81.5% (95% CI, 72.1%–88.3%), LR− of 0.024, and LR+ of 5.30. qPCR on upper respiratory tract samples provided lower sensitivity of 89.2% (95% CI, 71.0%–96.5%), high specificity of 90.5% (95% CI, 80.9%–95.5%), LR− of 0.120, and LR+ of 9.34. There was no significant difference in sensitivity and specificity of PCR according to HIV status of patients. Conclusions On deeper…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. 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: 7,835 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