Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis detection in different regions with different endemic burden: A systematic review and meta-analysis

<div><p>Purpose</p><p>To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF, a systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Up to June 20, 2015, multiple databases were screened for relevant studies.</p><p>Results</p><p>Accordingly, 106 studies included 52,410 samples were selected. Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for TB detection was validated against either culture or a composite reference standard (CRS). Additionally, selected studies were further subgrouped in four groups based on sample’s type, subject’s age, status of HIV co-infection and smear-positivity. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert MTB/RIF was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82–0.88) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.98), respectively, compared to culture; while it was 0.59 (95% CI 0.44–0.72) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97–1.00) compared to CRS. The overall sensitivity was lower in countries with high TB prevalence than countries with middle/low prevalence (0.84, 95% CI: 0.80–0.88 versus 0.89, 95% CI: 0.84–0.93). Furthermore, Xpert MTB/RIF has higher sensitivity in patients with positive smears (0.99, 95% CI 0.97–0.99), in patients with pulmonary TB samples (0.87, 95% CI 0.83–0.90), in adults (0.82, 95% CI 0.76–0.86) and in HIV-positive patients (0.81, 95% CI 0.73–0.87).</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Taken together, Xpert MTB/RIF is a quick and accurate diagnostic assay for TB which will significantly help the physicians to make their clinical decisions.</p></div

The SROC plot of Xpert MTB/RIF’s sensitivity, specificity and AUC (area under the curve) for tuberculosis detection in different prevalence regions versus culture reference standard.

<p>(A) High TB burden regions, (B) Middle and low prevalence regions. The sensitivity and specificity of one study were represented as a point; the summary sensitivity and specificity was represented as a summary point.</p

Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis detection in different regions with different endemic burden: A systematic review and meta-analysis - Fig 2

<p>The SROC plot of Xpert MTB/RIF’s sensitivity, specificity and AUC (area under the curve) for tuberculosis detection versus (A) culture and (B) CRS. The sensitivity and specificity of one study were represented as a point; the summary sensitivity and specificity was represented as a summary point.</p

Apple puree as a natural fructose source provides an effective alternative carbohydrate source for fuelling half-marathon running performance

Carbohydrate supplementation during endurance exercise is known to improve performance, but the effects of food-based approaches in running exercise are understudied. Therefore, this study investigated the performance and gastrointestinal (GI) effects of a carbohydrate supplement containing a natural fructose source compared with a highly processed fructose source in a combined glucose-fructose supplement, during a half-marathon. Eleven trained runners (9 males, 2 females; age 32 ± 8 y, 89:53 ± 13:28 min half-marathon personal record) completed a familiarisation (8 miles) and two experimental trials (13.1 miles) on an outdoor running course, with blood and urine samples collected before and after the run. Subjective GI measures were made throughout the run. Carbohydrate was provided as a natural fructose source in the form of apple puree (AP) or highly processed crystalline fructose (GF) in a 2:1 glucose-to-fructose ratio (additional required glucose was provided through maltodextrin). Half-marathon performance was not different between carbohydrate sources (AP 89:52 ± 09:33 min, GF 88:44 ± 10:09 min; P = 0.684). There were no interaction effects for GI comfort (P = 0.305) or other GI symptoms (P ≥ 0.211). There were no differences between carbohydrate sources in ad libitum fluid intake (AP 409 ± 206 mL; GF 294 ± 149 mL; P = 0.094) or any other urinary (P ≥ 0.724), blood-based (P ≥ 0.215) or subjective (P ≥ 0.421) measures. Apple puree as a natural fructose source was equivalent to crystalline fructose in supporting half-marathon running performance without increasing GI symptoms.  Highlights: Research examining food-first and food-based approaches to carbohydrate supplementation and endurance running performance are limited. Therefore, this study aimed to compare carbohydrate supplements either containing a natural or highly processed fructose source as part of a glucose-fructose supplement on half-marathon running performance and gastrointestinal comfort in trained runners. Running performance (apple puree 89:52 ± 09:33 min vs. crystalline fructose 88:44 ± 10:09 min), gastrointestinal comfort and symptoms were not different between the two fructose sources. Apple puree can be effectively used as a carbohydrate source to fuel half-marathon running performance.</p