Evidence Hub

Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia Diagnosis with Oropharyngeal Wash PCR in Immunocompromised Patients—A Systematic Review

V. Costa, J. P. Cidade, Inês Medeiros, Pedro Fidalgo, Hugo Moreira, Teresa Miranda, P. Póvoa

Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2025

633 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is the diagnostic gold standard but is invasive and often impractical in critically ill patients. Oropharyngeal wash (OW) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) offers a rapid, non-invasive alternative. We performed a systematic review focusing on this respiratory sample’s diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and clinical trial registries including ClinicalTrials.gov and MedRxiv for studies of PCR-based P. jirovecii detection in OW samples from immunocompromised adults, using BAL or induced sputum as reference standards. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was followed. Quality was assessed with Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), and pooled sensitivity/specificity were estimated using a bivariate random-effects model. Results: Twelve studies (n = 633; 346 confirmed PJP cases) met the inclusion criteria. Most cohorts were human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive. Pooled sensitivity was 68.3% (95% CI: 59.2–75.9) and specificity 91.8% (95% CI: 85.9–95.3); the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.887. Diagnostic yield improved with pre-sample cough induction, 60-s gargling, early sampling before extended therapy, and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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: 633 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