Diagnosing nontuberculous mycobacterial cervicofacial lymphadenitis in children: A systematic review

Publication date: September 2018
Source:International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, Volume 112
Author(s): S.H. Willemse, M.A.E.M. Oomens, J. De Lange, L.H.E. Karssemakers
ObjectivesWidespread controversy exists regarding correct diagnosing nontuberculous mycobacterial cervicofacial (NTM) lymphadenitis. This study intends to gather the available evidence with respect to diagnosing NTM cervicofacial lymphadenitis.MethodsA review protocol was developed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA)-statement (https://ift.tt/16KM5lR). A comprehensive search was performed in the bibliographic databases PubMed, Embase.com and Wiley/Cochrane Library. 10 Articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Assessing risk of bias of the articles was done using the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2) tool.ResultsThis systematic review shows that diagnostic studies of high methodological quality are scarce. Diagnostic accuracy of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), culture, skin testing, auramine staining, Ziehl-Neelsen staining, and immunodiagnostic assays was studied. Culture sensitivity proved to be 41,8%, while polymerase chain reaction has a sensitivity of 71,6%. Both methods showed a specificity of 100%. Sensitivity of Immunodiagnostic assays ranged between 87,5% and 100% and specificity between 81% and 100%. Overall sensitivity of skin tests containing purified protein derivative (PPD-S) was 70% (95% CI [62%–78%]) with an overall specificity of 94% (95% CI [88%–100%]).ConclusionsIn patients with a high clinical suspicion for NTM cervicofacial lymphadenitis, a positive PPD-S skin is indicative for the diagnosis of NTM cervicofacial lymphadenitis. Either PCR or culture is necessary to confirm the diagnosis. Interferon-γ release assays with purified protein derivative stimulation appear to provide good sensitivity and specificity as a non-invasive pre-operative test, but the evidence is weak. More studies of high methodological quality are needed to validate the results of this systematic review.



https://ift.tt/2MNCow4