A systematic review of rapid diagnostic tests for the detection of tuberculosis infection

Citations Over TimeTop 1% of 2007 papers

Abstract

The NAAT tests provide a reliable way of increasing the specificity of diagnosis (ruling in disease) but sensitivity is too poor to rule out disease, especially in smear-negative (paucibacillary) disease where clinical diagnosis is equivocal and where the clinical need is greatest. For extra-pulmonary TB, clinical judgement has both poor sensitivity and specificity. For pleural TB and TB meningitis, adenosine deaminase tests have high sensitivity but limited specificity. NAATs have high specificity and could be used alongside ADA (or interferon-gamma) to increase sensitivity for ruling out disease and NAAT for high specificity to rule it in. All studies from low-prevalence countries strongly suggest that the RD1 antigen-based assays are more accurate than TST- and PPD-based assays for diagnosis of LTBI. If their superior diagnostic capability is found to hold up in routine clinical practice, they could confer several advantages on TB control programmes. Further research for active TB needs to establish diagnostic accuracy in a wide spectrum of patients, against an appropriate reference test, and avoiding the major sources of bias. For LTBI, research needs to address different epidemiological and clinical settings, to evaluate the performance of the main existing commercial assays in head-to-head comparison in both developed and developing countries, and to assess the role of adding more TB-specific antigens to try to improve diagnostic sensitivity.

Related Papers

• → The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for caesarean sections: implications for the anaesthetist(2005)71 cited
• → National Institute for Clinical Excellence(2004)21 cited
• → Conflicting asthma guidelines reflect different motives(2018)2 cited
• → Clinical excellence(2005)
• → [The future of the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence].(2014)