Dataset Information

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Syndromic Management for Genital Ulcer Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Objectives: Genital Ulcer Disease (GUD) carries a significant disease burden globally. With limited access to diagnostics, the 2001 World Health Organization (WHO) sexually transmitted illnesses (STI) guidelines proposed a syndromic management algorithm that required a clinical decision to determine the management of GUD. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of this algorithm. Methods: We conducted a systematic review (Prospero: CRD42020153294) using eight databases for publications between 1995 and January 2021 that reported primary data on the diagnostic accuracy of clinical diagnosis to identify aetiological agents of GUD. Titles and abstracts were independently assessed for eligibility, and data were extracted from full texts for sensitivity/specificity. A hierarchical logistic regression model was used to derive pooled sensitivity and specificity. We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Results: Of 24,857 articles, 151 full texts were examined and 29 included in the analysis. The majority were from middle-income countries [(14/29 (48%) lower middle, 10/29 (34%) upper middle)]. We pooled studies where molecular testing was using to confirm the aetiology of GUD: 9 studies (12 estimates) for herpes, 4 studies (7 estimates) for syphilis, and 7 studies (10 estimates) for chancroid. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of GUD for the detection of herpes was 43.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 26.2-62.4], and 88.0% (95% CI: 67.0-96.3), respectively (high certainty evidence); and for syphilis were 52.8% (95% CI: 23.0-80.7), and 72.1% (95% CI: 28.0-94.5) (moderate certainty evidence); and for chancroid were 71.9% (95% CI: 45.9-88.5) and 53.1% (95% CI: 36.6-68.9) (moderate certainty evidence), respectively. Conclusion: Algorithms requiring a clinical diagnosis to determine and treat the aetiology of GUD have poor sensitivities for syphilis and herpes simplex virus, resulting in significant numbers of missed cases. There is an urgent need to improve access to affordable and efficient diagnostics (e.g., point-of-care tests) to be incorporated into GUD algorithms to better guide appropriate management. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42020153294.

SUBMITTER: Loh AJW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8767480 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWith the appearance of cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) cameras, dynamic myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) has been introduced, but comparable data to other MPI modalities, such as quantitative coronary angiography (CAG) with fractional flow reserve (FFR) and positron emission tomography (PET), are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic CZT single-photon emission tomography (SPECT) in coronary artery disease compared to quantitative CAG, FFR, and PET as reference.Materials and methodsDifferent databases were screened for eligible citations performing dynamic CZT-SPECT against CAG, FFR, or PET. PubMed, OvidSP (Medline), Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched on the 5th of July 2020. Studies had to meet the following pre-established inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials, retrospective trails or observational studies relevant for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease, and performing CZT-SPECT and within half a year the methodological references. Studies which considered coronary stenosis between 50% and 70% as significant based only on CAG were excluded. Data extracted were sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios. Quality was assessed with QUADAS-2 and statistical analysis was performed using a bivariate model.ResultsBased on our criteria, a total of 9 studies containing 421 patients were included. For the assessment of CZT-SPECT, the diagnostic value pooled analysis with a bivariate model was calculated and yielded a sensitivity of 0.79 (% CI 0.73 to 0.85) and a specificity of 0.85 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92). Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 17.82 (95% CI 8.80 to 36.08, P < 0.001). Positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were 3.86 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.38, P < 0.001) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.33, P < 0.001), respectively.ConclusionBased on the results of the current systematic review and meta-analysis, dynamic CZT-SPECT MPI demonstrated a good sensitivity and specificity to diagnose CAD as compared to the gold standards. However, due to the heterogeneity of the methodologies between the CZT-SPECT MPI studies and the relatively small number of included studies, it warrants further well-defined study protocols.

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.

Dataset Information

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Syndromic Management for Genital Ulcer Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets