Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search
Journal : Narra J

Diagnostic accuracy of GeneXpert in the diagnosis of spinal tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis Biakto, Karya T.; Kusmawan, I GPY.; Massi, Muhammad N.; Usman, Muhammad A.; Arifin, Jainal
Narra J Vol. 4 No. 2 (2024): August 2024
Publisher : Narra Sains Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.52225/narra.v4i2.925

Abstract

Tuberculosis remains a significant global health issue, with spinal tuberculosis being a severe form of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Despite the high morbidity associated with spinal tuberculosis, effective and rapid diagnostic methods are limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the GeneXpert compared to other microbiological methods in diagnosing spinal tuberculosis. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Six databases (PubMed, Scopus, EBSCO, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Central) were searched for relevant studies as of August 31, 2023. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion criteria, focusing on patients diagnosed with spinal tuberculosis and comparing GeneXpert to microbiological culture, acid-fast bacilli (AFB) staining, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Two authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment, and the meta-analysis was conducted using Meta-DiSc 2.0. Fourteen studies comprising retrospective cohort, prospective cohort, and cross-sectional designs were included. GeneXpert demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 92% (85–96%) and specificity of 71% (51–86%) compared to culture. AFB smear had the highest specificity at 80% (70–88%) but the lowest sensitivity at 27% (20–35%). The PCR had sensitivity and specificity of 83% (67–92%) and 58% (31–81%), respectively. Substantial heterogeneity was noted across the studies. This study highlighted that GeneXpert had high sensitivity and moderate specificity in diagnosing spinal tuberculosis, making it an alternative to conventional methods. However, further validation through larger, interventional studies is necessary to standardize its use in clinical practice.
Comparative effectiveness of microsurgery and endoscopic surgery in lumbar disc herniation: A systematic review and meta-analysis Arifin, Jainal; Gani, Karina Sylvana; Kennedy, Dave
Narra J Vol. 5 No. 1 (2025): April 2025
Publisher : Narra Sains Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.52225/narra.v5i1.1214

Abstract

Lumbar disc herniation, a common degenerative disc disease, adversely affects quality of life and often necessitates surgical intervention. Microsurgery and endoscopic surgery have emerged as alternatives to traditional open surgery, offering reduced pain and shorter recovery times. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of microsurgery and endoscopic surgery for lumbar disc herniation, evaluating effectiveness, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. A systematic search was conducted across six databases (EBSCOhost, OVID, ScienceDirect, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane) using terms related to lumbar disc herniation, spine injury, minimally invasive biportal endoscopic spine surgery, and conventional microscopic discectomy. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and a random-effects meta-analysis calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Among the 267 studies screened, two studies met the inclusion criteria for a meta-analysis assessing the functional outcomes and safety of microsurgery and endoscopic surgery in patients with spinal disorders. The meta-analysis indicated that patients who received microscopic surgery had no significant difference in terms of operation time (MD: 3.48; 95%CI: -14.74 –21.70; p=0.71; I²=90%), postoperative drainage (MD: 16.28; 95%CI: -2.33–34.89; p=0.09; I²=47%), postoperative length of stay (MD: -1.26; 95%CI: -2.52–0.00; p=0.05; I²=77%), and postoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (MD: -13.49; 95%CI: -36.85–9.87; p=0.26; I²= 97%) compared to those treated with endoscopic surgery. In conclusion, microscopic surgery and endoscopic surgery yield similar outcomes in terms of operation time, postoperative drainage, postoperative length of stay, and postoperative CRP levels. Therefore, the choice of techniques should be guided by patient-specific factors, surgeon expertise, and the facilities available at the healthcare center.