Meta-analysis of the utility of culture, biopsy, and direct KOH examination for the diagnosis of onychomycosis

Verónica Velasquez-Agudelo, Jaiberth Antonio Cardona-Arias, Verónica Velasquez-Agudelo, Jaiberth Antonio Cardona-Arias

Abstract

Background: Onychomycosis is a highly prevalent disease worldwide. There is no standard test for its diagnosis, which remains costly, wasteful, and is sometimes delayed. The diagnostic tests for this disease are few and discordant. The objective was to evaluate the diagnostic validity, performance, and accuracy of culture, nail clipping with Periodic Acid-Schiff -PAS- staining (biopsy), and direct potassium hydroxide (KOH) examination for the study of onychomycosis.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted via meta-analysis using 5 databases and 21 search strategies. An ex ante protocol was applied with inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool, and the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratios, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and proportion of correctly diagnosed patients were evaluated with the meta-analysis of studies of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests (Meta-DiSc) and Epidat using a random effects model.

Results: The efficiency or accuracy of the three tests is influenced by the methodological quality of the studies. These values are lower for KOH and culture and higher for biopsy in moderate quality studies.

Conclusion: The diagnostic tests evaluated in this meta-analysis independently showed acceptable validity, performance, and efficiency, with nail clipping with PAS staining outperforming the other two tests.

Keywords: Diagnosis; Meta-analysis as topic; Onychomycosis; Test validity; Validation studies.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study selection flow Diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Assessment of the quality and risk of bias of the included studies
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Meta-analysis of direct KOH examination for the diagnosis of onychomycosis (Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Likelihood Ratios, Negative Likelihood Ratios, Diagnostic odds ratio, ROC curve)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Meta-analysis of culture for the diagnosis of onychomycosis (Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Likelihood Ratios, Negative Likelihood Ratios, Diagnostic odds ratio, ROC curve)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Meta-analysis of biopsy for the diagnosis of onychomycosis (Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Likelihood Ratios, Negative Likelihood Ratios, Diagnostic odds ratio, ROC curve)

References

    1. Mendoza N, Palacios C, Cardona N, Gómez L. Onicomicosis: afección común de difícil tratamiento. Rev Asoc Colomb Dermatol. 2012;20:149–58.
    1. Relloso S, Arechavala A, Guelfand L, Maldonado I, Walker L, Agorio I, et al. Onychomycosis: multicentre epidemiological, clinical and mycological study. Rev Iberoam Micol. 2012;29:157–63. doi: 10.1016/j.riam.2011.11.003.
    1. Thomas J, Jacobson GA, Narkowicz CK, Peterson GM, Burnet H, Sharpe C. Toenail onychomycosis: an important global disease burden. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2010;35:497–519. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2009.01107.x.
    1. Lone R, Bashir D, Ahmad S, Syed A, Khurshid S. A study on clinico-mycological profile, aetiological agents and diagnosis of onychomycosis at a government medical college hospital in kashmir. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7:1983–5.
    1. Balleste R, Mousques N, Gezuele E. Onicomicosis. Revisión del tema. Rev Med Uruguay. 2003;19:93–106.
    1. Ameen M, Lear JT, Madan V, Mohd Mustapa MF, Richardson M. British Association of Dermatologists’ guidelines for the management of onychomycosis 2014. Br J Dermatol. 2014;171:937–58. doi: 10.1111/bjd.13358.
    1. Cavallera E, Asbati M. Onicomicosis por hongos filamentosos no dermatofitos. Dermatología Venezolana. 2006;44:4–10.
    1. López O, Torres J. Especies fúngicas poco comunes responsables de onicomicosis. Rev Iberoam Micol. 1999;16:11–5.
    1. Gupta AK, Simpson FC. Diagnosing onychomycosis. Clin Dermatol. 2013;31:540–3. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2013.06.009.
    1. Stewart CL, Rubin AI. Update: nail unit dermatopathology. Dermatol Ther. 2012;25:551–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-8019.2012.01510.x.
    1. Lawry MA, Haneke E, Strobeck K, Martin S, Zimmer B, Romano PS. Methods for diagnosing onychomycosis: a comparative study and review of the literature. Arch Dermatol. 2000;136:1112–6. doi: 10.1001/archderm.136.9.1112.
    1. Zanardi D, Holthausen D, Da Silva A, Quirino M, De Souza J. Avaliação dos métodosdiagnósticos para onicomicose. An Bras Dermatol. 2008;83:119–24. doi: 10.1590/S0365-05962008000200003.
    1. Borkowski P, Williams M, Holewinski J, Bakotic B. Onychomycosis: an analysis of 50 cases and a comparison of diagnostic techniques. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2001;91:351–5. doi: 10.7547/87507315-91-7-351.
    1. Karimzadegan-Nia M, Mir-Amin-Mohammadi A, Bouzari N, Firooz A. Comparison of direct smear, culture and histology for the diagnosis of onychomycosis. Australas J Dermatol. 2007;48:18–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-0960.2007.00320.x.
    1. Jeelani S, Ahmed QM, Lanker AM, Hassan I, Jeelani N, Fazili T. Histopathological examination of nail clippings using PAS staining (HPE-PAS): gold standard in diagnosis of onychomycosis. Mycoses. 2015;58:27–32. doi: 10.1111/myc.12251.
    1. Guevara M, Urcia F, Casquero J. Manual de procedimientos y técnicas de laboratorio para la identificación de los principales hongos oportunistas causantes de micosis humanas. Lima: Ministerio de Salud, Instituto Nacional de Salud. 2007.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Prisma Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135.
    1. Abraira V. Sesgos en los estudios sobre pruebas diagnósticas. SEMERGEN-Medicina de Familia. 2006;32:24–6. doi: 10.1016/S1138-3593(06)73213-0.
    1. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-25.
    1. Haghani I, Shokohi T, Hajheidari Z, Khalilian A, Aghili SR. Comparison of diagnostic methods in the evaluation of onychomycosis. Mycopathologia. 2013;175:315–21. doi: 10.1007/s11046-013-9620-9.
    1. Wilsmann-Theis D, Sareika F, Bieber T, Schmid-Wendtner MH, Wenzel J. New reasons for histopathological nail-clipping examination in the diagnosis of onychomycosis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011;25:235–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2010.03704.x.
    1. Hsiao YP, Lin HS, Wu TW, Shih HC, Wei SJ, Wang YL, et al. A comparative study of KOH test, PAS staining and fungal culture in diagnosis of onychomycosis in Taiwan. J Dermatol Sci. 2007;45:138–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2006.09.006.
    1. Velasquez V, De Bedout C, Cardona J, Cano L. Evaluaciòn de la biopsia ungueal como herramienta de apoyo en el diagnóstico de onicomicosis en un laboratorio de referencia de la ciudad de Medellin, Colombia. 2016.
    1. Hajar T, Fernandez-Martinez R, Moreno-Coutino G, Vasquez Del Mercado E, Arenas R. Modified PAS stain: a new diagnostic method for onychomycosis. Rev Iberoam Micol. 2016;33:34–7. doi: 10.1016/j.riam.2014.10.002.
    1. Alkhayat H, Al-Sulaili N, O’Brien E, McCuaig C, Watters K. The PAS stain for routine diagnosis of onychomycosis. Bahrain Medical Bulletin. 2009;31:1–8.
    1. Weinberg JM, Koestenblatt EK, Tutrone WD, Tishler HR, Najarian L. Comparison of diagnostic methods in the evaluation of onychomycosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;49:193–7. doi: 10.1067/S0190-9622(03)01480-4.
    1. Jung MY, Shim JH, Lee JH, Lee JH, Yang JM, Lee DY, et al. Comparison of diagnostic methods for onychomycosis, and proposal of a diagnostic algorithm. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2015;40:479–84. doi: 10.1111/ced.12593.
    1. Shenoy MM, Teerthanath S, Karnaker VK, Girisha BS, Krishna Prasad MS, Pinto J. Comparison of potassium hydroxide mount and mycological culture with histopathologic examination using periodic acid-Schiff staining of the nail clippings in the diagnosis of onychomycosis. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2008;74:226–9. doi: 10.4103/0378-6323.39584.
    1. Manterola C, Carlos; Vial M, Pineda V, Sanhueza A. Revisión sistemática de la literatura con diferentes tipos de diseños. International Journal of Morphology. 2009;27:1179–86
    1. González J, Balaguer A. Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis (I): conceptos básicos. Evidencias en Pediatría. 2007;3(4):1–10.
    1. Elewski BE, Tosti A. Risk factors and comorbidities for onychomycosis: implications for treatment with topical therapy. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2015;8:38–42.
    1. Gupta AK, Daigle D, Foley KA. Network meta-analysis of onychomycosis treatments. Skin Appendage Disord. 2015;1:74–81. doi: 10.1159/000433473.
    1. Vlahovic TC. Onychomycosis: evaluation, treatment options, managing recurrence, and patient outcomes. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2016;33:305–18. doi: 10.1016/j.cpm.2016.02.001.
    1. Escrig-Sos J, Martinez-Ramos D, Miralles-Tena JM. Diagnostic tests: basic concepts for their correct interpretation and use. Cir Esp. 2006;79:267–73. doi: 10.1016/S0009-739X(06)70871-5.
    1. Cerda LJ, Cifuentes AL. Clinical use of diagnostic tests (Part 1): analysis of the properties of a diagnostic test. Rev Chilena Infectol. 2010;27:205–8. doi: 10.4067/S0716-10182010000300004.
    1. Cifuentes L, Cerda J. Clinical use of diagnostic tests (Part 2): clinical application and usefulness of a diagnostic test. Rev Chilena Infectol. 2010;27:316–9. doi: 10.4067/S0716-10182010000500005.
    1. Szklo M, Nieto F. Epidemiología intermedia: conceptos y aplicaciones. Madrid: Diaz de Santos; 2003.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj