Diagnostic Test Accuracy Protocol

(1[RIGHTWARDS ARROW]3)β-D-glucan testing for the detection of invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients

  1. Robert L Schmidt1,*,
  2. Robert Schlaberg2,
  3. Kimberly Hanson3

Editorial Group: Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group

Published Online: 16 MAY 2012

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009833


How to Cite

Schmidt RL, Schlaberg R, Hanson K. (1[RIGHTWARDS ARROW]3)β-D-glucan testing for the detection of invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD009833. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009833.

Author Information

  1. 1

    University of Utah, School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

  2. 2

    Department of Pathology and ARUP Laboratories, University of Utah, Virology and Molecular Infectious Disease Laboratories, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

  3. 3

    University of Utah and ARUP Laboratories, Internal Medicine and Pathology, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

*Robert L Schmidt, Department of Pathology, University of Utah, School of Medicine, 15 North Medical Drive East, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112, USA. Robert.l.schmidt@att.net. Robert.Schmidt@hsc.utah.edu.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 16 MAY 2012

SEARCH

 

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:

To determine the diagnostic performance of BDG for diagnosis of invasive fungal infections (ECOG/MSG invasive or probable) in immunocompromized patients.

To compare the diagnostic performance of alternative tests (e.g. galactomannan) if head-to-head studies are available.

There are several possible sources of heterogeneity that could affect outcomes in this study. They include patient subgroups, reference test criteria (proven versus probable IFI), index test criteria (number of positive results required, sampling protocol, test cut-off values), the index test used (Fungitell versus Fungitec), and study design features (prospective versus retrospective). The EORTC/MSG criteria were developed in 2002 and subsequently revised in 2008 (Ascioglu 2002; De Pauw 2008). Thus, the change in criteria could be an additional source of heterogeneity. Finally, the time period between the evaluation of the index test (BDG) and the reference test (EORTC) could present another source of heterogeneity. Some studies use a cross sectional design in which the index test and reference test are evaluated at the same time. Others use a longitudinal design in which the reference test (EORTC) may be evaluated at some period after the index test.