Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007394
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Galactomannan detection for invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromized patients

Abstract: At a cut-off value 0.5 ODI in a population of 100 patients with a disease prevalence of 8% (overall median prevalence), 2 patients who have IA, will be missed (sensitivity 78%, 22% false negatives), and 17 patients will be treated or further referred unnecessarily (specificity of 81%, 19% false negatives). If we use the test at cut-off value 1.5 in the same population, that will mean that 3 IA patients will be missed (sensitivity 64%, 36% false negatives) and 5 patients will be treated or referred unnecessaril… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

3
107
2
10

Year Published

2011
2011
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 207 publications
(122 citation statements)
references
References 145 publications
3
107
2
10
Order By: Relevance
“…Development of tests not based on cultures, such as the galactomannan assay (GM assay), (1R3)-b-D-glucan assay (G assay) and PCR has received significant attention from researchers. Meta-analyses have shown a sensitivity of 0.78, 0.77 and 0.75 and a specificity of 0.81, 0.83 and 0.87 for the GM assay, G assay and PCR, respectively, using serum (Leeflang et al, 2008;Mengoli et al, 2009;Onishi et al, 2012). Despite their wide usage, these tests have limitations, such as time and equipment requirements as well as the occurrence of significant performance variation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Development of tests not based on cultures, such as the galactomannan assay (GM assay), (1R3)-b-D-glucan assay (G assay) and PCR has received significant attention from researchers. Meta-analyses have shown a sensitivity of 0.78, 0.77 and 0.75 and a specificity of 0.81, 0.83 and 0.87 for the GM assay, G assay and PCR, respectively, using serum (Leeflang et al, 2008;Mengoli et al, 2009;Onishi et al, 2012). Despite their wide usage, these tests have limitations, such as time and equipment requirements as well as the occurrence of significant performance variation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…61,62 With respect to serum BDG and GM assays, several meta-analyses have noted heterogeneity of results attributed to differences in study design, patient populations (e.g., hematologic vs other), the criteria used to define a positive test, and the definition of IA. [63][64][65][66][67][68] Among highrisk patients with hematologic malignancies and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia or allogeneic HCT, both tests share a similar sensitivity of 60%-80% and specificity of 90% and higher. 69 There may also be a role for combining serum BDG and GM screening in high-risk neutropenic patients.…”
Section: Improving Diagnosis Of Invasive Aspergillosismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Assays that detect fungal antigens such as GM by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (GM assay) or Aspergillus DNA by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) are emerging diagnostic methods; however, their specificity and sensitivity require additional characterization and refinement. The sensitivity of the GM assay ranges from 60% to 100% for infected Aspergillus samples, and the specificity ranges from 80% to 100% [10][11][12][13][14]. The cut-off value has a significant impact on diagnosis because of cross-reactivity [8,12,[15][16][17].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%