Diagnostic accuracy of multiplex nucleic acid amplification tests for Campylobacter infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Campylobacter infection is one of the most frequently reported foodborne diseases with approximately 230,000 and 1.5 million cases each year in Europe and the USA, respectively. Culture methods are the reference for the diagnosis of Campylobacter infections; however, these methods are complex and time-consuming. Multiplex nucleic acid amplification test is favored due to its rapidity, automatization in the procedure followed and the quick simultaneous testing of numerous foodborne pathogens. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the accuracy of these tests for the diagnosis of Campylobacter infection. Scopus, Science Direct, PubMed, Web of Science, and Mendeley were searched for peer-reviewed articles. The split component synthesis method with the use of the inverse variance heterogeneity model was chosen for the quantitative meta-analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed by age category and index test. The literature search found 34 studies involving 28,105 patients with suspected gastroenteritis. The sensitivity and specificity were 95.3% (92.3; 97.1) and 97.1% (95.1; 98.3), respectively, and AUC (area under the curve) was 0.963 (0.947; 0.974). Pediatric patients had a lower sensitivity (87.4, 48.2; 98.1) and higher specificity (99.2, 91.6; 99.9) estimate compared to all ages category (sensitivity 95.3, 91.3; 97.5, specificity 96.7, 93.7; 98.3). Among the various index tests, Seeplex/Allplex and Amplidiag/Novodiag had the lowest estimate for sensitivity (88.9, 73.8; 95.8) and specificity (95.2, 86; 98.4), respectively. BDMax had the highest (sensitivity 98.1, 96.1; 99 and specificity 98.5, 97; 99.3). Multiplex nucleic acid tests showed excellent accuracy and could play an influential role in diagnosing Campylobacter infections.

KEYWORDS:

• Campylobacter spp
• multiplex nucleic acid amplification test
• PCR
• accuracy
• diagnostic odds ratios
• sensitivity
• specificity

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/20477724.2022.2097830.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Horizon 2020 EU Project ‘unCoVer: Unravelling Data for Rapid Evidence-Based Response to COVID-19’ under Grant [Project ID:101016216]