Evidence Hub

Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy in chronic wound's microbiology

Berenguer-Pérez M, Manzanaro-García N, González-de la Torre H, Durán-Sáenz I, Hernández Martínez-Esparza E, Diaz Herrera MÁ, González Suárez B, Verdú-Soriano J

International wound journal, 2024

5 citations

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of non-culture-based methodologies for detecting microorganisms in chronic wounds.

Methods: We systematically reviewed studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of alternative tests in chronic wound samples, excluding studies focused on animal samples or unrelated conditions. The search encompassed PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science databases, employing the QUADAS-2 tool for risk of bias assessment. Our search included the PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science databases, and we assessed the risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. A meta-analysis was conducted on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and colorimetric methods to determine sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver-operating characteristic (sROC) curves using a random-effects model. For methods not suitable for quantitative synthesis, a narrative synthesis was performed.

Results: Nineteen studies involving various types of chronic wounds were analysed, revealing diverse diagnostic methods including fluorescence, PCR, colorimetry, voltammetry, electronic nose, biosensors, enzymatic methods, staining and microscopy. Combining fluorescence with clinical signs and symptoms (CSS) versus culture showed significant accuracy. Colorimetry demonstrated low sensitivity but high specificity, with a diagnostic odds ratio of 6.3. PCR generally exhibited good accuracy, although significant heterogeneity was noted, even in subgroup…

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.

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