METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review (SLR) covering the eye-tracking studies in classification published from 2016 to the present. In the search process, we used four independent electronic databases which were the IEEE Xplore, the ACM Digital Library, and the ScienceDirect repositories as well as the Google Scholar. The selection process was performed by using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) search strategy. We followed the processes indicated in the PRISMA to choose the appropriate relevant articles.
RESULTS: Out of the initial 420 articles that were returned from our initial search query, 37 articles were finally identified and used in the qualitative synthesis, which were deemed to be directly relevant to our research question based on our methodology.
CONCLUSION: The features that could be extracted from eye-tracking data included pupil size, saccade, fixations, velocity, blink, pupil position, electrooculogram (EOG), and gaze point. Fixation was the most commonly used feature among the studies found.
DESIGN: Studies on the association between CT values and smear status were included in a descriptive systematic review. Authors of studies including smear, culture and Xpert results were asked for individual-level data, and receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated.
RESULTS: Of 918 citations, 10 were included in the descriptive systematic review. Fifteen data sets from studies potentially relevant for individual-level data meta-analysis provided individual-level data (7511 samples from 4447 patients); 1212 patients had positive Xpert results for at least one respiratory sample (1859 samples overall). ROC analysis revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85 (95%CI 0.82-0.87). Cut-off CT values of 27.7 and 31.8 yielded sensitivities of 85% (95%CI 83-87) and 95% (95%CI 94-96) and specificities of 67% (95%CI 66-77) and 35% (95%CI 30-41) for smear-positive samples.
CONCLUSION: Xpert CT values and smear status were strongly associated. However, diagnostic accuracy at set cut-off CT values of 27.7 or 31.8 would not replace smear microscopy. How CT values compare with smear microscopy in predicting infectiousness remains to be seen.