Diagnostic accuracy of automation and non-automation techniques for identifying Burkholderia pseudomallei: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Burkholderia pseudomallei, a Gram-negative pathogen, causes melioidosis. Although various clinical laboratory identification methods exist, culture-based techniques lack comprehensive evaluation. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of culture-based automation and non-automation methods. Methods: Data were collected via PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus using specific search strategies. Selected studies underwent bias assessment using QUADAS-2. Sensitivity and specificity were computed, generating pooled estimates. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Results: The review encompassed 20 studies with 2988 B. pseudomallei samples and 753 non-B. pseudomallei samples. Automation-based methods, particularly with updating databases, exhibited high pooled sensitivity (82.79%; 95% CI 64.44–95.85%) and specificity (99.94%; 95% CI 98.93–100.00%). Subgroup analysis highlighted superior sensitivity for updating-database automation (96.42%, 95% CI 90.01–99.87%) compared to non-updating (3.31%, 95% CI 0.00–10.28%), while specificity remained high at 99.94% (95% CI 98.93–100%). Non-automation methods displayed varying sensitivity and specificity. In-house latex agglutination demonstrated the highest sensitivity (100%; 95% CI 98.49–100%), followed by commercial latex agglutination (99.24%; 95% CI 96.64–100%). However, API 20E had the lowest sensitivity (19.42%; 95% CI 12.94–28.10%). Overall, non-automation tools showed sensitivity of 88.34% (95% CI 77.30–96.25%) and specificity of 90.76% (95% CI 78.45–98.57%). Conclusion: The study underscores automation's crucial role in accurately identifying B. pseudomallei, supporting evidence-based melioidosis management decisions. Automation technologies, especially those with updating databases, provide reliable and efficient identification.