Objective: This review aimed to identify proper respiratory-related sample types for adult and pediatric pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB), respectively, by comparing performance of Xpert MTB/RIF when using bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), induced sputum (IS), expectorated sputum (ES), nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPAs), and gastric aspiration (GA) as sample.
Methods: Articles were searched in Web of Science, PubMed, and Ovid from inception up to 29 June 2020. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated, each with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Quality assessment and heterogeneity evaluation across included studies were performed.
Results: A total of 50 articles were included. The respective sensitivity and specificity were 87% (95% CI: 0.84-0.89), 91% (95% CI: 0.90-0.92) and 95% (95% CI: 0.93-0.97) in the adult BAL group; 90% (95% CI: 0.88-0.91), 98% (95% CI: 0.97-0.98) and 97% (95% CI: 0.95-0.99) in the adult ES group; 86% (95% CI: 0.84-0.89) and 97% (95% CI: 0.96-0.98) in the adult IS group. Xpert MTB/RIF showed the sensitivity and specificity of 14% (95% CI: 0.10-0.19) and 99% (95% CI: 0.97-1.00) in the pediatric ES group; 80% (95% CI: 0.72-0.87) and 94% (95% CI: 0.92-0.95) in the pediatric GA group; 67% (95% CI: 0.62-0.72) and 99% (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) in the pediatric IS group; and 54% (95% CI: 0.43-0.64) and 99% (95% CI: 0.97-0.99) in the pediatric NPA group. The heterogeneity across included studies was deemed acceptable.
Conclusion: Considering diagnostic accuracy, cost and sampling process, ES was a better choice than other sample types for diagnosing adult PTB, especially HIV-associated PTB. GA might be more suitable than other sample types for diagnosing pediatric PTB. The actual choice of sample types should also consider the needs of specific situations.
Keywords: Xpert MTB/RIF; diagnostic performance; pulmonary tuberculosis; sample types.
© 2020 The Author(s).