↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Polymerase chain reaction blood tests for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromised people

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

1 X user
1 Facebook page


44 Dimensions

Readers on

155 Mendeley
Polymerase chain reaction blood tests for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromised people
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009551.pub3
Pubmed ID

Mario Cruciani, Carlo Mengoli, Juergen Loeffler, Peter Donnelly, Rosemary Barnes, Brian L Jones, Lena Klingspor, Oliver Morton, Johan Maertens


Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is the most common life-threatening opportunistic invasive mould infection in immunocompromised people. Early diagnosis of IA and prompt administration of appropriate antifungal treatment are critical to the survival of people with IA. Antifungal drugs can be given as prophylaxis or empirical therapy, instigated on the basis of a diagnostic strategy (the pre-emptive approach) or for treating established disease. Consequently there is an urgent need for research into both new diagnostic tools and drug treatment strategies. Newer methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect fungal nucleic acids are increasingly being investigated. To provide an overall summary of the diagnostic accuracy of PCR-based tests on blood specimens for the diagnosis of IA in immunocompromised people. We searched MEDLINE (1946 to June 2015) and EMBASE (1980 to June 2015). We also searched LILACS, DARE, Health Technology Assessment, Web of Science and Scopus to June 2015. We checked the reference lists of all the studies identified by the above methods and contacted relevant authors and researchers in the field. We included studies that: i) compared the results of blood PCR tests with the reference standard published by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG); ii) reported data on false-positive, true-positive, false-negative and true-negative results of the diagnostic tests under investigation separately; and iii) evaluated the test(s) prospectively in cohorts of people from a relevant clinical population, defined as a group of individuals at high risk for invasive aspergillosis. Case-control studies were excluded from the analysis. Authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. For PCR assays, we evaluated the requirement for either one or two consecutive samples to be positive for diagnostic accuracy. We investigated heterogeneity by subgroup analyses. We plotted estimates of sensitivity and specificity from each study in receiver operating characteristics (ROC) space and constructed forest plots for visual examination of variation in test accuracy. We performed meta-analyses using the bivariate model to produce summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Eighteen primary studies, corresponding to 19 cohorts and 22 data sets, published between 2000 and 2013 were included in the meta-analyses, with a median prevalence of IA (proven or probable) of 12.0% (range 2.5 to 30.8 %). The majority of people had received chemotherapy for a haematological malignancy or had undergone a hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Several PCR techniques were used among the included studies. The sensitivity and specificity of PCR for the diagnosis of IA varied according to the interpretative criteria used to define a test as positive. The mean sensitivity and specificity were 80.5% (95% CI; 73.0 to 86.3) and 78.5% (67.8 to 86.4) for a single positive test result, and 58.0% (36.5 to 76.8) and 96.2% (89.6 to 98.6) for two consecutive positive test results. PCR shows moderate diagnostic accuracy when used as screening tests for IA in high-risk patient groups. Importantly the sensitivity of the test confers a high negative predictive value (NPV) such that a negative test allows the diagnosis to be excluded. Consecutive positives show good specificity in diagnosis of IA and could be used to trigger radiological and other investigations or for pre-emptive therapy in the absence of specific radiological signs when the clinical suspicion of infection is high. When a single PCR positive test is used as diagnostic criterion for IA in a population of 100 people with a disease prevalence of 13.0% (overall mean prevalence), three people with IA would be missed (sensitivity 80.5%, 19.5% false negatives), and 19 people would be unnecessarily treated or referred for further tests (specificity of 78.5%, 21.5% false positives). If we use the two positive test requirement in a population with the same disease prevalence, it would mean that six IA people would be missed (sensitivity 58.0%, 42.1% false negatives) and three people would be unnecessarily treated or referred for further tests (specificity of 96.2%, 3.8% false positives). Galactomannan and PCR have good NPV for excluding disease but the low prevalence of disease limits the ability to rule in a diagnosis. The biomarkers are detecting different aspects of disease and the combination of both together is likely to be more useful.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 153 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 14%
Researcher 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 41 26%
Unknown 31 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 42%
Unspecified 11 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 36 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 December 2015.
All research outputs
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 274,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 290 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,926 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 290 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.