Background Tuberculosis (TB) is the second most common cause of death due to a single infectious agent worldwide after COVID-19. Up to 15% of the cases are extrapulmonary, and if it is located in the central nervous system (CNS-TB), it presents high morbidity and mortality. Still, the global epidemiology of CNS-TB remains unknown. Aim To estimate the global prevalence and incidence of CNS-TB based on the available literature. Methods We systematically searched in MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Scopus, and LILACS databases (April 2020) and included observational studies evaluating the epidemiology of CNS-TB. Two independent researchers selected and assessed the quality of the studies and extracted relevant data. We performed random-effects model meta-analysis of proportions to estimate the pooled prevalence. The protocol of this study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42018103946). Results We included 53 studies from 28 countries, representing 12,621 patients with CNS-TB. The prevalence of CNS-TB was 2 per 100,000 inhabitants. According to the clinical setting, the prevalence of CNS-TB represented the 13.91% of all cases of meningitis and 4.55% of all cases of TB. The mortality was calculated by tuberculous meningitis due to the lack of data of other presentation, and it rose up to 42.12% in hospitalized patients. The burden of countries’ TB, Human Development Index (HDI), and the prevalence of HIV were the most important prevalence moderators, especially in patients with TB. No data on incidence were found. Conclusion The prevalence and mortality of CNS-TB remain high, and TB meningitis is the most frequent presentation. The highest prevalence was reported in developing countries, and its main moderators were the countries’ HDI and HIV infection. Our study was limited by high heterogeneity, risk of bias, and potential data under registration from developing countries. The integration of CNS-TB early detection and management into national TB programs and population-based studies from developing countries are needed for better global estimation and response. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00415-022-11052-8.

Estudiante de Medicina; b médico epidemiólogo; c veterinario, magister en gestión de la información y el conocimiento; d médico salubrista Recibido:

No abstract

Background: The accuracy of urine dipsticks to detect increased albuminuria is uncertain. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of urine dipsticks for detecting albuminuria. Methods: A systematic review of studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of urine dipstick testing for detecting albuminuria has been conducted (using as reference standard the albuminuria in a 24-hour sample or the albumin-to-creatinine ratio) in Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The risk of bias of the included studies has been assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Whenever possible, we performed meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity. The certainty of the evidence has also been assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Results: A total of 14 studies have been included in this review, having assessed all albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) as assessed standard. Each study used different dipstick types. The resulting pooled sensitivity and specificity for each cutoff point were as follows: for ACR >30 mg/g (13 studies): 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.76-0.87) and 0.88 (0.83-0.91); for ACR 30-300 mg/g (7 studies): 0.72 (0.68-0.77) and 0.82 (0.76-0.89); and for ACR >300 mg/g (7 studies): 0.84 (0.71-0.90) and 0.97 (0.95-0.99), respectively. An overall high risk of bias, an important heterogeneity in all pooled analysis, and a very low certainty of the evidence have been found. Conclusions: Pooled sensitivity and specificity of urine dipsticks have been calculated for different ACR cutoff points. However, the dipstick types differed across studies, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Thus, further well-designed studies are needed to reach more confident estimates and to assess accuracy differences across dipstick types. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42019124637).