Skip to main content

Evaluation of Xpert GBS assay and Xpert GBS LB assay for detection of Streptococcus agalactiae

Abstract

Background

Group B Streptococcal (GBS) infection is the primary agent of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Rapid and simple methods to detect GBS are Xpert GBS and GBS LB assays based on real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). However, since the diagnostic accuracy of the two techniques in diagnosing GBS remains unclear, we designed this study to appraise the diagnostic accuracy of the aforementioned.

Methods

A systematic search of all literature published before July 16, 2020 was conducted using Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. The study quality was evaluated through Review Manager 5.3. Accordingly, data extracted in the included studies were analyzed using Meta-DiSc 1.4 and Stata 12.0 software. The diagnosis odds ratio (DOR) and bivariate boxplot were utilized to evaluate the heterogeneity. Publication bias was appraised by using Deeks’ funnel plot.

Results

A total of 13 studies were adopted and only 19 sets of data met the criteria. The sensitivity and specificity of Xpert GBS were 0.91 (95% CI 0.89–0.92) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.92–0.94). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.9806. The sensitivity and specificity results of Xpert GBS LB were 0.96 (95% CI 0.95–0.98) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.92–0.95), respectively. The AUC was 0.9950. No publication bias was found.

Conclusions

The Xpert GBS and GBS LB assays are valuable alternative methods with high sensitivity and specificity. However, determining whether they can be used as clinical diagnostic standards for GBS is essential for the future.

Background

Streptococcus agalactiae, also known as group B Streptococcus (GBS), is a gram-positive Streptococcus inhabiting the vagina and rectum of humans [1]. GBS may reproduce briefly, intermittently, or continuously on the vaginal or anorectal mucosa of a woman [2]. Worldwide, the estimated incidence of systemic invasive GBS in pregnant women is 0.38 cases per 1000, with a case fatality rate of 0.2% [3]. China has an estimated 13,604 cases of GBS and 1141 deaths of GBS-related infants aged less than 90 days each year [4]. GBS can be vertically transmitted from a pregnant woman to a newborn at birth, causing early (day 6) or late (day 7 to day 89) disease, a common cause of neonatal infection and death [5, 6].

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines in 2019 recommend GBS screening for pregnant women with a gestational age between 36 0/7 and 37 6/7 weeks and intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) treatment for women with positive results. Currently, enrichment culture is the gold-standard method for detecting GBS [7,8,9]. However, with limitations: (a) it requires 18–72 h; (b) the source of specimen collection and the experience of laboratory operators have a significant impact on its accuracy; (c) sensitivity is estimated at 54.3 to 83.3%. In addition, as enrichment culture takes time to obtain results, some pregnant women who don't receive prenatal care before presenting in labor and those who give birth prematurely, before the recommended testing period cannot be helped [10, 11]. Moreover, the 2010 CDC revision of the guidelines mentioned that nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) could be used to assess intrapartum GBS colonization with the advantage of rapid turnaround time. But the sensitivity of the direct-from-specimen testing is not adequate compared to culture [1]. Futhermore, traditional PCR requires technically skilled operators and specific laboratory equipment, thereby limiting its practical use [12].

Presently, increasing real-time PCR assays for GBS have been developed, such as Xpert GBS (Cepheid, USA) and Xpert GBS LB (Cepheid, USA). Cepheid’s Gene Xpert System can automatically extract, amplify, and detect DNA, a system that could be installed out of the laboratory in countries approved by regulatory bodies, only requiring simple operation and providing results in less than 1 h, resulting in a more practical method for the rapid diagnosis of GBS [11, 13]. It targets the CAMP factor encoding gene present in nearly all GBS [14]. Furthermore, Xpert GBS and Xpert GBS LB are both based on the Gene Xpert System for the antepartum and intrapartum screening of GBS. They differ fundamentally in that the specimen of Xpert GBS LB requires enrichment before detection, while Xpert GBS is performed from the primary specimen without enrichment [15]. However, due to the lack of systematic evaluation of the accuracy of Xpert GBS and Xpert GBS LB in detecting GBS, we conducted this research to assess the sensitivity and specificity of these methods to provide a new method for clinical rapid diagnosis of GBS.

Methods

Study design

Studies published before July 16, 2020 were considered for the literature review. The accuracy of the Xpert GBS and GBS LB diagnostics in the GBS was systematically reviewed through a pooled-analysis.

Search strategy

We searched all literature dated before July 16, 2020 in four major databases—PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library—using the following search strategy: ((“Xpert GBS” OR “Xpert GBS technology” OR “Xpert GBS assay” OR “Xpert® GBS real-time PCR” OR “Xpert GBS real-time PCR assay” OR “Xpert GBS real-time PCR kit” OR “Xpert GBS rapid test”) AND “Group B Streptococcal [all synonyms]”).

Study selection

Inclusion criteria: Studies were included if (1) Xpert GBS or GBS LB assay was used as a detection method; (2) complete data were extractable to construct fourfold tables; (3) the reference standard was described, including GBS culture (enrichment culture or direct culture) or PCR; (4) they were published in English; (5) the sample size was no fewer than 50.

Exclusion criteria: Studies were excluded when (1) duplicate studies existed; (2) there was a lack of complete data for fourfold tables; (3) no reference standard or composite reference standard, including Xpert GBS or GBS LB assay, were provided; (4) abstracts or conference summary.

Data extraction and quality assessment

All our data were extracted independently by four experimenters, followed by checking and verification by other experimenters. Any existing differences were verified by other experimenters twice until correct.

The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) guideline was used to evaluate the quality of the included study that has four key parts: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing [16]. The quality of studies was plotted using Review Manager version 5.3.

Statistical analysis

Meta-DiSc version 1.4 was employed to estimate the extracted fourfold table data: sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), together with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Subsequently, a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was plotted based on pooled sensitivity and specificity, followed by conducting a random effects model to analyze the data; the results were presented via forest maps. We used Stata version 12.0 to draw Deeks’ funnel plot to detect publication bias along with generating a bivariate box plot and Fagan’s nomogram to evaluate the outliers and describe the diagnosis value of Xpert GBS and GBS LB assays for GBS.

In addition, we found that if the true positive (TP) or true negative (TN) of the four-fold table data was 0, errors would occur in data analysis. In order to solve this problem, we changed 0 to 0.5 in meta-DISc and 0 to 1 for Fagan’s nomogram in Stata.

Results

Eligible studies

We searched 45 related studies from four databases (19 in PubMed, 4 in Embase, 22 in Web of Science, and 0 in Cochrane Library) according to the search strategy, excluding 23 duplicates of these. Moreover, none of the studies were excluded after reviewing the abstract. Therefore, by screening the full text of the 22 studies, 9 were excluded due to various reasons (2 studies lacked gold standard, 2 studies were short of enough samples, 1 had composite gold standard including detection method, 1 was a conference summary, and 3 had incomplete data). At last, we incorporated 13 studies meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria [2, 10,11,12,13,14,15, 17,18,19,20,21,22]. More details have been provided in the supplementary materials (Additional file 1: Figure S1).

Study result & characteristics

In the selected 13 studies, we obtained 19 groups of data and 6273 samples. From these studies, we identified information such as author, year, country, reference standard, detection method, sample type, sample source, the timing of specimen collection and pregnancy time. The detailed characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

Study quality assessment

The quality of the individual studies was appraised by QUADAS-2 items, as shown in Fig. 1. In terms of patient selection, the results indicated that 1 study was likely to have an unclear risk of bias while the other 12 studies were at low risk. The applicability concerns of 1 study were rated as unknown and 12 as low. The index test presented that 5 studies had an unclear risk of bias when the other 8 studies had a low risk. The applicability concerns included 5 studies of unknown concerns and 8 of low concerns. In terms of reference standard, 1 study was rated an unclear risk and its applicability concern was unknown. The other 12 studies showed low risks of bias and low concerns. In terms of flow and timing, all the bias risks of included studies were rated low.

Fig. 1
figure1

Methodological quality assessment of included studies

Results of Xpert GBS

SROC curve and diagnostic accuracy

The results of sensitivity and specificity were 0.91 (95% CI 0.89–0.92) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.92–0.94), as shown in Fig. 2a and b, respectively. The PLR of Xpert GBS was 17.57 (95% CI 8.86–34.81) (Fig. 2c) and the NLR was 0.10 (95% CI 0.05–0.20) (Fig. 2d). The result of DOR was 217.19 (95% CI 62.96–749.20) (Fig. 2e). The AUC (the area under the SROC curve) of Xpert GBS (Fig. 2f) was 0.9806 and the Q* index was 0.9383. The Fagan nomogram analysis showed positive post-test probability (97%) and negative post-test probability (5%) when the predicted probability was set to 50% (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2
figure2

Forest plot of Xpert GBS assay. (a sensitivity, b specificity, c positive LR, d negative LR, e diagnostic odds ratio, f SROC curve)

Fig. 3
figure3

Fagan nomogram analysis of Xpert GBS assay

Heterogeneity analysis

We applied the Bivariate boxplot and index (I-square) to analyze the heterogeneity. For Xpert GBS, the bivariate boxplot of Xpert GBS (Fig. 4) showed that three sets of data were out of the circles. Besides, the I2 of DOR was 92.1% (Fig. 2e). We used the Spearman correlation coefficient to evaluate the threshold effect of the included studies. With the studies that used Xpert GBS, the Spearman correlation coefficient was −0.063 and their p value was 0.846.

Fig. 4
figure4

Bivariate boxplot of Xpert GBS assay

Publications bias evaluation

We used Deeks’ funnel plot to evaluate the publication bias [23]. Xpert GBS assay is shown in Fig. 5. The p value of Xpert GBS is 0.73.

Fig. 5
figure5

Deeks’ funnel plot asymmetry test of Xpert GBS assay

Results of Xpert GBS LB

SROC curve and diagnostic accuracy

The results of sensitivity and the specificity of Xpert GBS LB were 0.96 (95% CI 0.95–0.98) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.92–0.95), as shown in Fig. 6a and b respectively. The PLR and the NLR of Xpert GBS was 15.32 (95% CI 9.20–25.53) (Fig. 6c) and 0.04 (95% CI 0.01–0.14) (Fig. 6d), respectively. The result of DOR was 1052.05 (95% CI 362.04–3057.14) (Fig. 6e). In the SROC curve of Xpert GBS LB, the AUC (Fig. 6f) was 0.9950 and the Q* index was 0.9727. The Fagan nomogram analysis showed positive post-test probability (99%) and negative post-test probability (3%) when the predicted probability was set to 50% (Fig. 7).

Fig. 6
figure6

Forest plot of Xpert GBS LB assay. (a sensitivity, b specificity, c positive LR, d negative LR, e diagnostic odds ratio, f SROC curve)

Fig. 7
figure7

Fagan nomogram analysis of Xpert GBS LB assay

Heterogeneity analysis

For the bivariate boxplot of Xpert GBS LB, one set of data out of the circles showed low heterogeneity between the included studies (Fig. 8). In addition, the I2 of DOR was 20.9% (Fig. 6e). The Spearman correlation coefficient of the studies about Xpert GBS LB was 0.500 and its p value was 0.253.

Fig. 8
figure8

Bivariate boxplot of Xpert GBS LB assay

Publications bias evaluation

The Deeks’ funnel plot of Xpert GBS LB assay is shown in Fig. 9. The p value of Xpert GBS LB is 0.91.

Fig. 9
figure9

Deeks’ funnel plot asymmetry test of Xpert GBS LB assay

Discussion

More than 21 million pregnant women are colonized by GBS each year, which is parasitic on the vagina and/or rectum and can be vertically transmitted to the fetus during pregnancy or delivery [6, 24]. There are approximately 319,000 invasive neonatal GBS infections worldwide. Furthermore, 35% of neonatal deaths are caused by GBS infections [25]. Therefore, it is important to identify GBS infections during pregnancy and at the time of birth.

The Xpert GBS and GBS LB (Cepheid, USA) are rapid and convenient PCR assays for detecting GBS based on Cepheid’s Gene Xpert System [11]. A comprehensive search based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria set by this study led to the retrieval of 13 articles and 19 sets of data. The test methods included in these studies are Xpert GBS and GBS LB assays from Cepheid, USA, suggesting that the data we extracted would not cause great heterogeneity by different manufacturers.

The AUC (0.9806) and the Q index (0.9383) of the SROC curve for Xpert GBS are both close to 1, suggesting high diagnostic values. The results of the systematic evaluation we performed showed that Xpert GBS owned a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI 0.89–0.92), a specificity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.92–0.94), and a DOR of 217.19 (95% CI 62.96–749.20). Besides, the I2 of DOR was 92.1%. The grades of heterogeneity distinguished by I2 are explained as follows: 0–40% shows low heterogeneity, 50–70% shows moderate heterogeneity, and > 70% shows significant heterogeneity [26]. Further, we used a bivariate boxplot to estimate sensitivity and specificity with the corresponding 95% CI of the included studies. There are two elliptical lines in the plot, and the inner one represents the median distribution while the outer is represents 95% CI. The point out of the oval indirectly implies the threshold variability [27]. For Xpert GBS, the bivariate boxplot of Xpert GBS showed that three sets of data were out of the circles, meaning there was heterogeneity between the included studies. The result of the Spearman correlation coefficient (−0.063) was less than 0.6 and the p value (0.846) was greater than 0.05, indicating that there is no threshold effect in the included studies of Xpert GBS [28]. We didn’t find publication bias of Xpert GBS because the p value of Deeks’ funnel plot (0.73) was greater than 0.05, which indicated that the absence of asymmetry was not statistically significant [29].

For Xpert GBS LB, the AUC (0.9950) and the Q index (0.9727) of the SROC curve for Xpert GBS LB are both closer to 1, suggesting more effective diagnostic accuracy than Xpert GBS. It had a sensitivity of 0.96 (95% CI 0.95–0.98), a specificity of 0.94 (95% CI 0.92–0.95), and a DOR of 1052.05 (95% CI 362.04–3057.14). In addition, the I2 of DOR was 20.9%. For Xpert GBS LB, one set of data out of the circles showed low heterogeneity between included studies. Therefore, there is low heterogeneity of Xpert GBS LB. The result of the Spearman correlation coefficient (0.500) was less than 0.6 and the p value (0.253) was more than 0.05, showing there was no threshold effect of Xpert GBS LB assay. We didn’t find publication bias in the included studies of Xpert GBS LB because the p value of Deeks’ funnel plot (0.91) is greater than 0.05, indicating there was no publication bias or asymmetry in the figure.

In addition, we analyzed possible sources of heterogeneity in the inclusion studies detected by Xpert GBS: retrospective or prospective studies, differences in gestation time, delivery time, or prenatal sampling time, vaginal and rectal or amniotic fluid sampling sites, etc. A study in Lima, Peru, showed that more GBS were isolated from the vagina than the rectum. Prenatal sampling may also influence the detection of GBS [30]. Studies have shown that the colonization rate of GBS culture in the third trimester (35–37 weeks) was 29.0%, slightly lower than that in the prenatal period (29.7%) [31].

We found that the sensitivity and specificity of Xpert GBS LB assay were higher than Xpert GBS assay compared to culture. This is consistent with the results that Blake W. Buchan constructed to compare diagnosis accuracy with Xpert GBS and GBS LB assays [10]. The fundamental difference between the two methods is whether the specimen broth-enriched 18–24 h before detection. Despite the lower sensitivity and specificity, Xpert GBS assay takes less than 1 h to produce results and thus applies to intrapartum screening in delivery. Xpert GBS LB assay has higher sensitivity and specificity, but it takes more time than Xpert GBS assay, therefore applying more to antepartum screening. These two methods have their own advantages and complement each other.

However, our current research still has some limitations, as reflected in the following aspects: pregnancy time, reference standard and type of sample, which make the exhaustive evaluation of the data difficult. Furthermore, because we have not been able to contact the author to obtain the unknown timing of specimen collection, we are unable to know whether the sensitivity of Xpert GBS and GBS LB assays detected during antepartum and intrapartum is different. A comparative study in parallel of both methodologies is necessary to demonstrate the greater usefulness of one of them.

In summary, Xpert GBS and GBS LB assays have excellent accuracy in the rapid diagnosis of GBS infection in pregnant women. Therefore, further prospective studies are needed to verify whether it can be used as widely as gold standard GBS culture in clinical practice.

Conclusions

The Xpert GBS and GBS LB assays are quick and sensitive prenatal GBS testing tools. Ideally, the test can be conducted near the delivery room to provide a fast and accurate diagnosis.

Availability of data and materials

All data analyzed in this study are included in the article.

Abbreviations

GBS:

Group B Streptococcal

PCR:

Polymerase chain reaction

DOR:

Diagnosis odds ratio

AUC:

Area under the curve

95% CI:

Confidence interval

ACOG:

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

IAP:

Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis

CDC:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

NAAT:

Nucleic acid amplification tests

QUADAS-2:

Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

PLR:

Positive likelihood ratio

NLR:

Negative likelihood ratio

DOR:

Diagnostic odds ratio

SROC:

Summary receiver operating characteristic

TP:

True positive

TN:

True negative

Fig.:

Figure

References

  1. 1.

    Verani JR, McGee L, Schrag SJ. Division of Bacterial Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevention of perinatal group B streptococcal disease--revised guidelines from CDC, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2010 Nov 19;59(RR-10):1-36. (1545-8601 (Electronic)).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Vieira LL, Perez AV, Machado MM, Kayser ML, Vettori DV, Alegretti AP, Ferreira CF, Vettorazzi J, Valério EG. Group B Streptococcus detection in pregnant women: comparison of qPCR assay, culture, and the Xpert GBS rapid test. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Hall J, Adams NH, Bartlett L, Seale AC, Lamagni T, Bianchi-Jassir F, Lawn JE, Baker CJ, Cutland C, Heath PT, et al. Maternal disease with group B Streptococcus and serotype distribution worldwide: systematic review and meta-analyses. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65:S112–24 (1537-6591 (Electronic)).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ji W, Liu H, Madhi SA, Cunnington M, Zhang Z, Dangor Z, Zhou H, Mu X, Jin Z, Wang A, Qin X, et al. Clinical and molecular epidemiology of invasive group B Streptococcus disease among infants. China Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;2019:25 (1080-6059 (Electronic)).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Hernandez DAO, Wolk DAO, Walker KL, Young S, Dunn R, Dunbar SA, Rao A. Multicenter diagnostic accuracy evaluation of the luminex aries real-time PCR assay for group b streptococcus detection in lim broth-enriched samples. J Clin Microbiol. 2018;56:e01768-17 (1098-660X (Electronic)).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Edmond KM, Kortsalioudaki C, Scott S, Schrag SJ, Zaidi AK, Cousens S, Heath PT. Group B streptococcal disease in infants aged younger than 3 months: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2012;379:547–56 (1474-547X (Electronic)).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Prevention of Group B Streptococcal Early-Onset Disease in Newborns: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 782. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jul;134(1):1. (1873-233X (Electronic)).

  8. 8.

    Prevention of Group B Streptococcal Early-Onset Disease in Newborns: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 797. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):e51-e72. (1873-233X (Electronic)).

  9. 9.

    Filkins LAO, Hauser JR, Robinson-Dunn B, Tibbetts R, Boyanton BL, Revell PAO. American society for microbiology provides 2020 guidelines for detection and identification of group B Streptococcus. J Clin Microbiol. 2020;59:e01230-20 (1098-660X (Electronic)).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Buchan BW, Faron ML, Fuller D, Davis TE, Mayne D, Ledeboer NA. Multicenter clinical evaluation of the Xpert GBS LB assay for detection of group B Streptococcus in prenatal screening specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53(2):443–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Gouvea MIS, Joao EC, Teixeira MLB, Read JS, Fracalanzza SEL, Souza CTV, Souza MJ, Torres Filho HM, Leite CCF. do Brasil P: Accuracy of a rapid real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for diagnosis of group B Streptococcus colonization in a cohort of HIV-infected pregnant women. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30(9):1096–101.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    El Helali N, Nguyen JC, Ly A, Giovangrandi Y, Trinquart L. Diagnostic accuracy of a rapid real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for universal intrapartum group B Streptococcus screening. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(3):417–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Plainvert C, El Alaoui F, Tazi A, Joubrel C, Anselem O, Ballon M, Frigo A, Branger C, Mandelbrot L, Goffinet F, et al. Intrapartum group B Streptococcus screening in the labor ward by Xpert® GBS real-time PCR. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018;37(2):265–70.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Choera T, Jung-Hynes B, Chen DJ. Comparative study of Revogene GBS LB assay and GeneXpert GBS LB assay for the detection of group B Streptococcus in prenatal screening samples. BMC Infect Dis. 2020;20(1):38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Tickler IA, Tenover FC, Dewell S, Le VM, Blackman RN, Goering RV, Rogers AE, Piwonka H, Jung-Hynes BD, Chen DJ, et al. Streptococcus agalactiae strains with chromosomal deletions evade detection with molecular methods. J Clin Microbiol. 2019;57(4):e02040-e2118.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA, Bossuyt PM. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36 (1539-3704 (Electronic)).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Bourgeois-Nicolaos N, Cordier AG, Guillet-Caruba C, Casanova F, Benachi A, Doucet-Populaire F. Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert GBS assay for rapid detection of group B Streptococci in amniotic fluids from pregnant women with premature rupture of membranes. J Clin Microbiol. 2013;51(4):1305–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Park JS, Cho DH, Yang JH, Kim MY, Shin SM, Kim EC, Park SS, Seong MW. Usefulness of a rapid real-time PCR assay in prenatal screening for group B Streptococcus colonization. Ann Lab Med. 2013;33(1):39–44.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Helmig RB, Gertsen JB. Diagnostic accuracy of polymerase chain reaction for intrapartum detection of group B Streptococcus colonization. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96(9):1070–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Rabaan AA, Saunar JV, Bazzi AM, Soriano JL. Modified use of real-time PCR detection of group B Streptococcus in pregnancy. J Med Microbiol. 2017;66(10):1516–20.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Said M, Dangor Y, Mbelle N, Sihlabela A, Lekalakala MR, Ismail F. Comparison of Xpert GBS v. culture for rapid detection of group B Streptococcus in pregnant women: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. SAMJ S Afr Med J. 2018;108(12):1032–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Shin JH, Pride DT. Comparison of three nucleic acid amplification tests and culture for detection of group B Streptococcus from enrichment broth. J Clin Microbiol. 2019;57(6):e01958-18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:882–93 (0895-4356 (Print)).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Russell NJ, Seale AC, O’Driscoll M, O’Sullivan C, Bianchi-Jassir F, Gonzalez-Guarin J, Lawn JE, Baker CJ, Bartlett L, Cutland C, et al. Maternal colonization with group B Streptococcus and serotype distribution worldwide: systematic review and meta-analyses. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65:S100–11 (1537-6591 (Electronic)).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Seale AC, Bianchi-Jassir F, Russell NJ, Kohli-Lynch M, Tann CJ, Hall J, Madrid L, Blencowe H, Cousens S, Baker CJ, et al. Estimates of the burden of group B streptococcal disease worldwide for pregnant women, stillbirths, and children. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65:S200–19 (1537-6591 (Electronic)).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

  27. 27.

    Liu CAO, Gil-Gómez A, Ampuero JAO, Romero-Gómez MAO. Diagnostic accuracy of SCCA and SCCA-IgM for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Liver Int. 2018;38:1820–31 (1478-3231 (Electronic)).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Chen YZ, Sun LC, Wen YH, Li ZW, Fan SJ, Tan HK, Qiu M, Pan ZY, Li Q, Zhao YZ, et al. Pooled analysis of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for diagnosing tuberculous meningitis. 2020. Biosci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1042/BSR20191312 (1573-4935 (Electronic)).

  29. 29.

    Zhou Z, Li W. Zhang FA-O, Hu K: The value of squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCCa) to determine the lymph nodal metastasis in cervical cancer: a meta-analysis and literature review. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0186165 (1932-6203 (Electronic)).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Collins TS, Calderon MA, Gilman RH, Vivar AL, Charache P. Group B streptococcal colonization in a developing country: its association with sexually transmitted disease and socioeconomic factors. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1998;59:633–6 (0002-9637 (Print)).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Virranniemi MAO, Raudaskoski TAO, Haapsamo M, Kauppila J, Renko MAO, Peltola J, Risteli L, Laatio LAO. The effect of screening-to-labor interval on the sensitivity of late-pregnancy culture in the prediction of group B streptococcus colonization at labor: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Acta obstet et Gynecol Scand. 2019;98:494–9 (1600-0412 (Electronic)).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We express our sincere gratitude to all the patients and clinical researchers who were involved in the included studies for their wonderful work and valuable participation.

Funding

This study was supported by The Third Clinical School of Guangzhou Medical University (No. 2020A030).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

XGG and YCW planned and designed the experiments. MYH, CX, QQH, QHW and QYD participated in literature retrieval, data extraction and quality evaluation and prepared the manuscript. TAX, YLL, ZLL and JHZ provide critical comments on the revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xu-Guang Guo.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest in the publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Figure S1.

Flow diagram of study identification and inclusion.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Han, MY., Xie, C., Huang, QQ. et al. Evaluation of Xpert GBS assay and Xpert GBS LB assay for detection of Streptococcus agalactiae. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 20, 62 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941-021-00461-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Xpert GBS assay
  • Xpert GBS LB assay
  • Group B Streptococcus
  • Diagnostic accuracy