title: Diagnostic Accuracy of PCR Alone and Compared to Urinary Antigen Testing for Detection of Legionella spp.: a Systematic Review.
abstract: The diagnosis of Legionnaires' disease (LD) is based on the isolation of Legionella spp., a 4-fold rise in antibodies, a positive urinary antigen (UA), or direct immunofluorescence tests. PCR is not accepted as a diagnostic tool for LD. This systematic review assesses the diagnostic accuracy of PCR in various clinical samples with a direct comparison versus UA. We included prospective or retrospective cohort and case-control studies. Studies were included if they used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention consensus definition criteria of LD or a similar one, assessed only patients with clinical pneumonia, and reported data for all true-positive, false-positive, true-negative, and false-negative results. Two reviewers abstracted data independently. Risk of bias was assessed using Quadas-2. Summary sensitivity and specificity values were estimated using a bivariate model and reported with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Thirty-eight studies were included. A total of 653 patients had confirmed LD, and 3,593 patients had pneumonia due to other pathogens. The methodological quality of the studies as assessed by the Quadas-2 tool was poor to fair. The summary sensitivity and specificity values for diagnosis of LD in respiratory samples were 97.4% (95% CI, 91.1% to 99.2%) and 98.6% (95% CI, 97.4% to 99.3%), respectively. These results were mainly unchanged by any covariates tested and subgroup analysis. The diagnostic performance of PCR in respiratory samples was much better than that of UA. Compared to UA, PCR in respiratory samples (especially in sputum samples or swabs) revealed a significant advantage in sensitivity and an additional diagnosis of 18% to 30% of LD cases. The diagnostic performance of PCR in respiratory samples was excellent and preferable to that of the UA. Results were independent on the covariate tested. PCR in respiratory samples should be regarded as a valid tool for the diagnosis of LD.
authors.affiliation: Medicine E, Beilinson Hospital and Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel tomerav@clalit.org.il.
authors.forename: Tomer
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Avni
authors.affiliation: Medicine E, Beilinson Hospital and Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
authors.forename: Amir
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0395-4171
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Bieber
authors.affiliation: Medicine E, Beilinson Hospital and Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
authors.forename: Hefziba
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Green
authors.affiliation: Medicine E, Beilinson Hospital and Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
authors.forename: Tali
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Steinmetz
authors.affiliation: Medicine E, Beilinson Hospital and Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
authors.forename: Leonard
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Leibovici
authors.affiliation: Infectious Diseases Unit, Rambam Medical Center and Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Tehnion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
authors.forename: Mical
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Paul
mesh_terms: D000942:Antigens, Bacterial / Q000276:immunology / Q000652:urine; D006801:Humans; D007159:Immunologic Tests / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D007875:Legionella / Q000235:genetics* / Q000276:immunology*; D007876:Legionellosis / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000382:microbiology*; D016133:Polymerase Chain Reaction / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D017594:Publication Bias; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity
chemical_list: D000942:Antigens, Bacterial