13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Diagnostic tools for neurosyphilis: a systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Increasing incidences of syphilis highlight the preoccupation with the occurrence of neurosyphilis. This study aimed to understand the current diagnostic tools and their performance to detect neurosyphilis, including new technologies and the variety of existing methods.

          Methods

          We searched databases to select articles that reported neurosyphilis diagnostic methods and assessed their accuracy, presenting sensitivity and specificity values. Information was synthesized in tables. The risk of bias was examined using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy recommendations.

          Results

          Fourteen studies were included. The main finding was a remarkable diversity of tests, which had varied purposes, techniques, and evaluation methodologies. There was no uniform criterion or gold standard to define neurosyphilis. The current basis for its diagnosis is clinical suspicion and cerebrospinal fluid analysis. There are new promising tests such as PCR tests and chemokine measurement assays.

          Conclusions

          The diagnosis of neurosyphilis is still a challenge, despite the variety of existing and developing tests. We believe that the multiplicity of reference standards adopted as criteria for diagnosis reveals the imprecision of the current definitions of neurosyphilis. An important next step for the scientific community is to create a universally accepted diagnostic definition for this disease.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-021-06264-8.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies

          Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of 1 or more index tests against a reference standard, provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability in test accuracy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews

            Background In the era of evidence based medicine, with systematic reviews as its cornerstone, adequate quality assessment tools should be available. There is currently a lack of a systematically developed and evaluated tool for the assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. The aim of this project was to combine empirical evidence and expert opinion in a formal consensus method to develop a tool to be used in systematic reviews to assess the quality of primary studies of diagnostic accuracy. Methods We conducted a Delphi procedure to develop the quality assessment tool by refining an initial list of items. Members of the Delphi panel were experts in the area of diagnostic research. The results of three previously conducted reviews of the diagnostic literature were used to generate a list of potential items for inclusion in the tool and to provide an evidence base upon which to develop the tool. Results A total of nine experts in the field of diagnostics took part in the Delphi procedure. The Delphi procedure consisted of four rounds, after which agreement was reached on the items to be included in the tool which we have called QUADAS. The initial list of 28 items was reduced to fourteen items in the final tool. Items included covered patient spectrum, reference standard, disease progression bias, verification bias, review bias, clinical review bias, incorporation bias, test execution, study withdrawals, and indeterminate results. The QUADAS tool is presented together with guidelines for scoring each of the items included in the tool. Conclusions This project has produced an evidence based quality assessment tool to be used in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. Further work to determine the usability and validity of the tool continues.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              PCR-based diagnostics for infectious diseases: uses, limitations, and future applications in acute-care settings

              Summary Molecular diagnostics are revolutionising the clinical practice of infectious disease. Their effects will be significant in acute-care settings where timely and accurate diagnostic tools are critical for patient treatment decisions and outcomes. PCR is the most well-developed molecular technique up to now, and has a wide range of already fulfilled, and potential, clinical applications, including specific or broad-spectrum pathogen detection, evaluation of emerging novel infections, surveillance, early detection of biothreat agents, and antimicrobial resistance profiling. PCR-based methods may also be cost effective relative to traditional testing procedures. Further advancement of technology is needed to improve automation, optimise detection sensitivity and specificity, and expand the capacity to detect multiple targets simultaneously (multiplexing). This review provides an up-to-date look at the general principles, diagnostic value, and limitations of the most current PCR-based platforms as they evolve from bench to bedside.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                gustavo.boog@fm.usp.br
                Journal
                BMC Infect Dis
                BMC Infect Dis
                BMC Infectious Diseases
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2334
                14 June 2021
                14 June 2021
                2021
                : 21
                : 568
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.11899.38, ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0722, Faculdade de Medicina, , Universidade de Sao Paulo, ; Sao Paulo, Brazil
                [2 ]GRID grid.11899.38, ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0722, Infection Control Department, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, , Universidade de Sao Paulo, ; Sao Paulo, Brazil
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8176-4787
                Article
                6264
                10.1186/s12879-021-06264-8
                8201870
                34126948
                f621dfd0-effb-4980-89cd-d34a0bc8eafb
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 20 April 2021
                : 1 June 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                neurosyphilis,syphilis,cerebrospinal fluid,diagnosis,diagnostic tests,accuracy

                Comments

                Comment on this article