The diagnostic accuracy of oral specimen nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) remains controversial. We performed a systematic review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, including studies that reported the diagnostic yield of NAATs in oral samples for PTB diagnosis. The pooled estimates, including those of sensitivity and specificity, were calculated, and a meta-regression was performed to investigate heterogeneity, which was determined using χ2 and I² tests. A total of 23 articles were included, and the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of NAATs in oral samples for PTB diagnosis were 50% (95% CI, 37%-63%), 97% (95% CI, 93%-99%), and 0.89 (95% CI, 86%-92%; I 2 = 99%; chi-square, 169.61; P < .001), respectively. Our data demonstrated that NAATs using oral samples have a less satisfactory sensitivity and high specificity for PTB diagnosis. However, due to significant heterogeneity, such as heterogeneity in age, the results should be interpreted with caution.

BACKGROUND: Countries with high TB burden have expanded access to molecular diagnostic tests. However, their impact on reducing delays in TB diagnosis and treatment has not been assessed. Our primary aim was to summarize the quantitative evidence on the impact of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) on diagnostic and treatment delays compared to that of the standard of care for drug-sensitive and drug-resistant tuberculosis (DS-TB and DR-TB).
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Global Health databases (from their inception to October 12, 2020) and extracted time delay data for each test. We then analysed the diagnostic and treatment initiation delay separately for DS-TB and DR-TB by comparing smear vs Xpert for DS-TB and culture drug sensitivity testing (DST) vs line probe assay (LPA) for DR-TB. We conducted random effects meta-analyses of differences of the medians to quantify the difference in diagnostic and treatment initiation delay, and we investigated heterogeneity in effect estimates based on the period the test was used in, empiric treatment rate, HIV prevalence, healthcare level, and study design. We also evaluated methodological differences in assessing time delays.
RESULTS: A total of 45 studies were included in this review (DS = 26; DR = 20). We found considerable heterogeneity in the definition and reporting of time delays across the studies. For DS-TB, the use of Xpert reduced diagnostic delay by 1.79 days (95% CI - 0.27 to 3.85) and treatment initiation delay by 2.55 days (95% CI 0.54-4.56) in comparison to sputum microscopy. For DR-TB, use of LPAs reduced diagnostic delay by 40.09 days (95% CI 26.82-53.37) and treatment initiation delay by 45.32 days (95% CI 30.27-60.37) in comparison to any culture DST methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the use of World Health Organization recommended diagnostics for TB reduced delays in diagnosing and initiating TB treatment. Future studies evaluating performance and impact of diagnostics should consider reporting time delay estimates based on the standardized reporting framework.

Upper-respiratory-tract infections (URTIs) are among the main causes of antibiotic prescriptions in pediatric patients. Over one-third of all antibiotic prescriptions for URTIs in children are estimated to be inappropriate, as the majority of URTIs are caused by viral agents. Several strategies, including clinical scoring algorithms and different point-of-care tests (POCTs) have been developed to help discriminate bacterial from viral URTIs in the outpatient clinical setting. A systematic review of the literature was conducted following PRISMA guidelines with the objective of summarizing evidence from health-economic evaluations on the use of POCT for URTIs in pediatric outpatients. A total of 3375 records identified from four databases and other sources were screened, of which 8 met the inclusion criteria. Four studies were classified as being of high reporting quality, and three were of medium quality. Five out of eight studies concluded in favor of strategies that included POCTs, with an additional study finding several POCTs to be cost-effective compared to usual care but over an acceptable WTP threshold. This review found POCT could be a valuable tool for antimicrobial stewardship strategies targeted towards childhood URTIs in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Management and control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) relies on reliable diagnostic testing.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for the diagnosis of coronavirus infections.
METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Open Grey and conference proceeding until May 2019. PubMed and medRxiv were updated for COVID-19 on 31st August 2020.
METHODS: Studies were eligible if they reported on agreement rates between different NAATs using clinical samples.
METHODS: Symptomatic patients with suspected upper or lower respiratory tract coronavirus infection.
METHODS: The new NAAT was defined as the index test and the existing NAAT as reference standard. Data were extracted independently in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Confidence regions (CRs) surrounding summary sensitivity/specificity pooled by bivariate meta-analysis are reported. Heterogeneity was assessed using meta-regression.
RESULTS: Fifty-one studies were included, 22 of which included 10 181 persons before COVID-19 and 29 including 8742 persons diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The overall summary sensitivity was 89.1% (95%CR 84.0-92.7%) and specificity 98.9% (95%CR 98.0-99.4%). Nearly all the studies evaluated different PCRs as both index and reference standards. Real-time RT PCR assays resulted in significantly higher sensitivity than other tests. Reference standards at high risk of bias possibly exaggerated specificity. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of studies evaluating SARS-COV-2 were 90.4% (95%CR 83.7-94.5%) and 98.1% (95%CR 95.9-99.2), respectively. SARS-COV-2 studies using samples from the lower respiratory tract, real-time RT-PCR, and tests targeting the N or S gene or more than one gene showed higher sensitivity, and assays based on reverse transcriptase loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), especially when targeting only the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) gene, showed significantly lower sensitivity compared to other studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Pooling all studies to date shows that on average 10% of patients with coronavirus infections might be missed with PCR tests. Variables affecting sensitivity and specificity can be used for test selection and development.