Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for hepatitis delta virus diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Akuffo GA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11316141 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for hepatitis delta virus diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Akuffo Golda Ataa GA Ouoba Serge S Ko Ko K Chhoung Chanroth C Phyo Zayar Z Mirzaev Ulugbek Khudayberdievich UK Sugiyama Aya A Akita Tomoyuki T Tanaka Junko J
Scientific reports 20240809 1
Hepatitis Delta Virus (HDV), a satellite virus of Hepatitis B virus, exacerbates liver damage in affected individuals. Screening for HDV antibodies in HBsAg positive patients is recommended, but the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests remains uncertain. This review aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for HDV. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus etc. for relevant studies. Studies measuring the sensitivity and spe ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and Aims Coinfection of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) with hepatitis B virus (HBV) causes the most severe form of viral hepatitis, and the global prevalence of HDV infection is underestimated. Although serological testing of anti-HDV antibodies is widely used in the diagnosis of HDV, its diagnostic efficacy remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of HDV serological tests, the results of which may assist in the diagnosis of HDV. Methods Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. The PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched from the beginning to 31 May 2023. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. STATA SE was used for the meta-analysis of the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio. Results Among a total of 1376 initially identified studies, only 12 articles met the final inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 1.00 (95% CI: 0.00-1.00) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.50-0.78) for HDV total antibodies, 0.96 (95% CI: 0.83-0.99) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.82-1.00) for anti-HDV IgM and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.86-0.98) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.67-1.00) for anti-HDV IgG. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for HDV serological tests were 0.99 (95% CI: 0.96-1.00) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.79-0.96). Conclusions This meta-analysis suggests that serological tests have high diagnostic performance in detecting antibodies against HDV, especially in HDV IgM and IgG. However, this conclusion is based on studies of a limited number and quality, and the development of new diagnostic tools with higher precision and reliability is still necessary.
| S-EPMC10747714 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChikungunya virus (CHIKV) causes febrile illnesses and has always been misdiagnosed as other viral infections, such as dengue and Zika; thus, a laboratory test is needed. Serological tests are commonly used to diagnose CHIKV infection, but their accuracy is questionable due to varying degrees of reported sensitivities and specificities. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests currently available for CHIKV.Methodology and principal findingsA literature search was performed in PubMed, CINAHL Complete, and Scopus databases from the 1st December 2020 until 22nd April 2021. Studies reporting sensitivity and specificity of serological tests against CHIKV that used whole blood, serum, or plasma were included. QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability, while R software was used for statistical analyses. Thirty-five studies were included in this meta-analysis; 72 index test data were extracted and analysed. Rapid and ELISA-based antigen tests had a pooled sensitivity of 85.8% and 82.2%, respectively, and a pooled specificity of 96.1% and 96.0%, respectively. According to our meta-analysis, antigen detection tests serve as a good diagnostic test for acute-phase samples. The IgM detection tests had more than 90% diagnostic accuracy for ELISA-based tests, immunofluorescence assays, in-house developed tests, and samples collected after seven days of symptom onset. Conversely, low sensitivity was found for the IgM rapid test (42.3%), commercial test (78.6%), and for samples collected less than seven of symptom onset (26.2%). Although IgM antibodies start to develop on day 2 of CHIKV infection, our meta-analysis revealed that the IgM detection test is not recommended for acute-phase samples. The diagnostic performance of the IgG detection tests was more than 93% regardless of the test formats and whether the test was commercially available or developed in-house. The use of samples collected after seven days of symptom onset for the IgG detection test suggests that IgG antibodies can be detected in the convalescent-phase samples. Additionally, we evaluated commercial IgM and IgG tests for CHIKV and found that ELISA-based and IFA commercial tests manufactured by Euroimmun (Lübeck, Germany), Abcam (Cambridge, UK), and Inbios (Seattle, WA) had diagnostic accuracy of above 90%, which was similar to the manufacturers' claim.ConclusionBased on our meta-analysis, antigen or antibody-based serological tests can be used to diagnose CHIKV reliably, depending on the time of sample collection. The antigen detection tests serve as a good diagnostic test for samples collected during the acute phase (≤7 days post symptom onset) of CHIKV infection. Likewise, IgM and IgG detection tests can be used for samples collected in the convalescent phase (>7 days post symptom onset). In correlation to the clinical presentation of the patients, the combination of the IgM and IgG tests can differentiate recent and past infections.
| S-EPMC8849447 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.Results5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).ConclusionHigher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179452.
| S-EPMC7327913 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPoint-of-care tests provide a plausible diagnostic strategy for hepatitis C infection in economically impoverished areas. However, their utility depends upon the overall performance of individual tests.MethodsA literature search was conducted using the metasearch engine Mettā, a query interface for retrieving articles from five leading medical databases. Studies were included if they employed point-of-care tests to detect antibodies of hepatitis C virus and compared the results with reference tests. Two reviewers performed a quality assessment of the studies and extracted data for estimating test accuracy.FindingsThirty studies that had evaluated 30 tests fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The overall pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood-ratio, negative likelihood-ratio and diagnostic odds ratio for all tests were 97.4% (95% CI: 95.9-98.4), 99.5% (99.2-99.7), 80.17 (55.35-116.14), 0.03 (0.02-0.04), and 3032.85 (1595.86-5763.78), respectively. This suggested a high pooled accuracy for all studies. We found substantial heterogeneity between studies, but none of the subgroups investigated could account for the heterogeneity. Genotype diversity of HCV had no or minimal influence on test performance. Of the seven tests evaluated in the meta-regression model, OraQuick had the highest test sensitivity and specificity and showed better performance than a third generation enzyme immunoassay in seroconversion panels. The next highest test sensitivities and specificities were from TriDot and SDBioline, followed by Genedia and Chembio. The Spot and Multiplo tests produced poor test sensitivities but high test specificities. Nine of the remaining 23 tests produced poor test sensitivities and specificities and/or showed poor performances in seroconversion panels, while 14 tests had high test performances with diagnostic odds ratios ranging from 590.70 to 28822.20.ConclusionsPerformances varied widely among individual point-of-care tests for diagnosis of hepatitis C virus infection. Physicians should consider this while using specific tests in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC4376712 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chronic pulmonary aspergillosis (CPA) is a slow and progressive disease that develops in preexisting lung cavities of patients with tuberculosis sequelae, and it is associated with a high mortality rate. Serological tests such as double agar gel immunodiffusion test (DID) or counterimmunoelectrophoresis (CIE) test have been routinely used for CPA diagnosis in the absence of positive cultures. However, these tests have been replaced with enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) and, a variety of methods. This systematic review compares ELISA accuracy to reference test (DID and/or CIE) accuracy in CPA diagnosis. It was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The study was registered in PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42016046057. We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Elsevier), LILACS (VHL), Cochrane library, and ISI Web of Science. Gray literature was researched using Google Scholar and conference abstracts. We included articles with patients or serum samples from patients with CPA who underwent two serological tests: ELISA (index test) and IDD and/or CIE (reference test). We used the test accuracy as a result. Original articles were considered without a restriction of date or language. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were estimated. We included 14 studies in the review, but only four were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivities and specificities were 0.93 and 0.97 for the ELISA test. These values were 0.64 and 0.99 for the reference test (DID and/or CIE). Analyses of summary receiver operating characteristic curves yielded 0.99 for ELISA and 0.99 for the reference test (DID and/or CIE). Our meta-analysis suggests that the diagnostic accuracy of ELISA is greater than the reference tests (DID and/or CIE) for early CPA detection.
| S-EPMC7077827 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is growing support for a biopsy avoidant approach to diagnose coeliac disease in both children and adults, using a serological diagnosis instead.AimsTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coeliac disease in adults and children.MethodsSeven electronic databases were searched between January 1990 and August 2020. Eligible diagnostic studies evaluated the accuracy of serological tests for coeliac disease against duodenal biopsy. Risk of bias assessment was performed using QUADAS-2. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate serology sensitivity and specificity at the most commonly reported thresholds.Results113 studies (n = 28,338) were included, all in secondary care populations. A subset of studies were included in meta-analyses due to variations in diagnostic thresholds. Summary sensitivity and specificity of immunoglobulin A (IgA) anti-tissue transglutaminase were 90.7% (95% confidence interval: 87.3%, 93.2%) and 87.4% (84.4%, 90.0%) in adults (5 studies) and 97.7% (91.0%, 99.4%) and 70.2% (39.3%, 89.6%) in children (6 studies); and of IgA endomysial antibodies were 88.0% (75.2%, 94.7%) and 99.6% (92.3%, 100%) in adults (5 studies) and 94.5% (88.9%, 97.3%) and 93.8% (85.2%, 97.5%) in children (5 studies).ConclusionsAnti-tissue transglutaminase sensitivity appears to be sufficient to rule out coeliac disease in children. The high specificity of endomysial antibody in adults supports its use to rule in coeliac disease. This evidence underpins the current development of clinical guidelines for a serological diagnosis of coeliac disease. Studies in primary care are needed to evaluate serological testing strategies in this setting.
| S-EPMC9305515 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough direct-acting antivirals can achieve sustained virological response rates greater than 90% in Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infected persons, at present the majority of HCV-infected individuals remain undiagnosed and therefore untreated. While there are a wide range of HCV serological tests available, there is a lack of formal assessment of their diagnostic performance. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate he diagnostic accuracy of available rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) and laboratory based EIA assays in detecting antibodies to HCV.MethodsWe used the PRISMA checklist and Cochrane guidance to develop our search protocol. The search strategy was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015023567). The search focused on hepatitis C, diagnostic tests, and diagnostic accuracy within eight databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, SCOPUS, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde and WHO Global Index Medicus. Studies were included if they evaluated an assay to determine the sensitivity and specificity of HCV antibody (HCV Ab) in humans. Two reviewers independently extracted data and performed a quality assessment of the studies using the QUADAS tool. We pooled test estimates using the DerSimonian-Laird method, by using the software R and RevMan. 5.3.ResultsA total of 52 studies were identified that included 52,673 unique test measurements. Based on five studies, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of HCV Ab rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) were 98% (95% CI 98-100%) and 100% (95% CI 100-100%) compared to an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) reference standard. High HCV Ab RDTs sensitivity and specificity were observed across screening populations (general population, high risk populations, and hospital patients) using different reference standards (EIA, nucleic acid testing, immunoblot). There were insufficient studies to undertake subanalyses based on HIV co-infection. Oral HCV Ab RDTs also had excellent sensitivity and specificity compared to blood reference tests, respectively at 94% (95% CI 93-96%) and 100% (95% CI 100-100%). Among studies that assessed individual oral RDTs, the eight studies revealed that OraQuick ADVANCE® had a slightly higher sensitivity (98%, 95% CI 97-98%) compared to the other oral brands (pooled sensitivity: 88%, 95% CI 84-92%).ConclusionsRDTs, including oral tests, have excellent sensitivity and specificity compared to laboratory-based methods for HCV antibody detection across a wide range of settings. Oral HCV Ab RDTs had good sensitivity and specificity compared to blood reference standards.
| S-EPMC5688422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hepatitis D virus (HDV) depends on hepatitis B virus (HBV) to enter and exit hepatocytes and to replicate. Despite this dependency, HDV can cause severe liver disease. HDV accelerates liver fibrosis, increases the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma, and hastens hepatic decompensation compared to chronic HBV monoinfection. The Chronic Liver Disease Foundation (CLDF) formed an expert panel to publish updated guidelines on the testing, diagnosis, and management of hepatitis delta virus. The panel group performed network data review on the transmission, epidemiology, natural history, and disease sequelae of acute and chronic HDV infection. Based on current available evidence, we provide recommendations for screening, testing, diagnosis, and treatment of hepatitis D infection and review upcoming novel agents that may expand treatment options. The CLDF recommends universal HDV screening for all patients who are Hepatitis B surface antigen-positive. Initial screening should be with an assay to detect antibodies generated against HDV (anti-HDV). Patients who are positive for anti-HDV IgG antibodies should then undergo quantitative HDV RNA testing. We also provide an algorithm that describes CLDF recommendations on the screening, diagnosis, testing, and initial management of Hepatitis D infection.
| S-EPMC10374831 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19).MethodsPubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1 2020 to September 2 2022. We included studies that measured the sensitivity, specificity or both qualities of a COVID-19 serological test and a reference standard of a viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The risk of bias was assessed by using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). The primary outcomes included overall sensitivity and specificity, as stratified by the methods of serological testing [enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)] and immunoglobulin classes (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum-specific sensitivity and specificity within the subgroups, as defined by study or participant characteristics, which included the time from the onset of symptoms, testing via commercial kits or an in-house assay, antigen target, clinical setting, serological kit as the index test and the type of specimen for the RT-PCR reference test.ResultsEight thousand seven hundred and eighty-five references were identified and 169 studies included. Overall, we judged the risk of bias to be high in 47.9 % (81/169) of the studies, and a low risk of applicability concerns was found in 100% (169/169) of the studies. For each method of testing, the pooled sensitivity of the ELISAs ranged from 81 to 82%, with sensitivities ranging from 69 to 70% for the LFIAs and 77% to 79% for the CLIAs. Among the evaluated tests, IgG (80-81%)-based tests exhibited better sensitivities than IgM-based tests (66-68%). IgG/IgM-based CLIA had the highest sensitivity [87% (86-88%)]. All of the tests displayed high specificity (97-98%). Heterogeneity was observed in all of the analyses. The detection of nucleocapsid protein (77-80%) as the antigen target was found to offer higher sensitivity results than surface protein detection (66-68%). Sensitivity was higher in the in-house assays (78-79%) than in the commercial kits (47-48%).ConclusionAmong the evaluated tests, ELISA and CLIA tests performed better in terms of sensitivity than did the LFIA. IgG-based tests had higher sensitivity than IgM-based tests, and combined IgG/IgM test-based CLIA tests had the best overall diagnostic test accuracy. The type of sample, serological kit and timing of use of the specific tests were associated with the diagnostic accuracy. Due to the limitations of the serological tests, other techniques should be quickly approved to provide guidance for the correct diagnosis of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9800917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Measles and rubella serological diagnoses are done by IgM detection. The World Health Organization Global Measles and Rubella Laboratory Network previously endorsed Siemens Enzygnost enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay kits, which have been discontinued. A recommended replacement has not been determined. We aimed to search for suitable replacements by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of IgM detection methods that are currently available for measles and rubella. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, Global Health, Cochrane Central, and Scopus on March 22 and on 27 September 2023. Studies reporting measles and/or rubella IgM detection with terms around diagnostic accuracy were included. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS tools. Meta-DiSc and R were used for statistical analysis. Clinical samples totalling 5,579 from 28 index tests were included in the measles meta-analysis. Sensitivity and specificity of the individual measles studies ranged from 0.50 to 1.00 and 0.53 to 1.00, respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of all measles IgM detection methods were 0.94 (CI: 0.90-0.97) and 0.94 (CI: 0.91-0.97), respectively. Clinical samples totalling 4,983 from 15 index tests were included in the rubella meta-analysis. Sensitivity and specificity of the individual rubella studies ranged from 0.78 to 1.00 and 0.52 to 1.00, respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of all rubella IgM detection methods were 0.97 (CI: 0.93-0.98) and 0.96 (CI: 0.93-0.98), respectively. Although more studies would be ideal, our results may provide valuable information when selecting IgM detection methods for measles and/or rubella.
| S-EPMC10865830 | biostudies-literature