The prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection in patients with chronic kidney disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Résumé fourni par la source
Objective To estimate the prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients . Methods This study was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. We identified, 3694 studies from the whole search, and 59 studies were included. Each study's quality was assessed using JBI checklist. We employed STATA version 17 for statistical analysis. We assessed heterogeneity using I 2 heterogeneity test. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot and Egger's test. We estimated the pooled LTBI prevalence in CKD patients along with 95%CI. Results The pooled prevalence of LTBI among CKD patients using data collected from 53 studies having 12,772 patients was 30.2% (95%CI; 25.5, 34.8). The pooled prevalence among pre-dialysis, hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and renal transplanted patients was 17.8% (95%CI; 3.3, 32.4), 34.8% (95%CI; 29.1, 40.5), 25% (95%CI; 11, 38), and 16% (95%CI; 7, 25), respectively. The pooled prevalence of LTBI stratified by the laboratory screening methods was 25.3% (95%CI: 20.3–30.3) using TST, 28.0% (95%CI; 23.9–32.0) using QFT, and 32.6%, (95%CI: 23.7–41.5) using T-SPOT. Conclusion There is high prevalence of LTBI among CKD patients mainly in patients on dialysis. Thus, early diagnosis and treatment of LTBI in CKD patients should be performed to prevent active TB in CKD patients. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022372441.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- The prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection in patients with chronic kidney disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- Date Crossref
- 01/06/2023
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.