Dataset Information

Cholera diagnosis in human stool and detection in water: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cholera continues to pose a problem for low-resource, fragile and humanitarian contexts. Evidence suggests that 2.86 million cholera cases and 95,000 deaths due to cholera are reported annually. Without quick and effective diagnosis and treatment, case-fatality may be 50%. In line with the priorities of the Global Task Force on Cholera Control, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy and other test characteristics of current tests for cholera detection in stool and water.

Methods

We searched 11 bibliographic and grey literature databases. Data was extracted on test sensitivity, specificity and other product information. Meta-analyses of sensitivity and specificity were conducted for tests reported in three or more studies. Where fewer studies reported a test, estimates were summarised through narrative synthesis. Risk of Bias was assessed using QUADAS-2.

Results

Searches identified 6,637 records; 41 studies reporting on 28 tests were included. Twenty-two tests had both sensitivities and specificities reported above 95% by at least one study, but there was, overall, wide variation in reported diagnostic accuracy across studies. For the three tests where meta-analyses were possible the highest sensitivity meta-estimate was found in the Cholera Screen test (98.6%, CI: 94.7%-99.7%) and the highest specificity meta-estimate in the Crystal VC on enriched samples (98.3%, CI: 92.8%-99.6%). There was a general lack of evidence regarding field use of tests, but where presented this indicated trends for lower diagnostic accuracy in field settings, with lesser-trained staff, and without the additional process of sample enrichment. Where reported, mean test turnaround times ranged from over 50% to 130% longer than manufacturer's specification. Most studies had a low to unclear risk of bias.

Conclusions

Currently available Rapid Diagnostic Tests can potentially provide high diagnostic and detection capability for cholera. However, stronger evidence is required regarding the conditions required to secure these levels of accuracy in field use, particularly in low-resource settings.

Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42016048428).

SUBMITTER: Falconer J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9258865 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cholera is a highly infectious diarrheal disease spread via fecal contamination of water and food sources; it is endemic in parts of Africa and Asia and recent outbreaks have been reported in Haiti, the Zambia and Democratic Republic of the Congo. If left untreated, the disease can be fatal in less than 24 h and result in case fatality ratios of 30-50%. Cholera disproportionately affects those living in areas with poor access to water and sanitation: the long-term public health response is focused on improving water and hygiene facilities and access. Short-term measures for infection prevention and control, and disease characterization and surveillance, are impaired by diagnostic delays: culture methods are slow and rely on the availability of infrastructure and specialist equipment. Rapid diagnostic tests have shown promise under field conditions and further innovations in this area have been proposed. METHODS:This paper is the protocol for a systematic review focused on identifying current technologies and methods used for cholera diagnosis in stool, and detection in water. We will synthesize and appraise information on product technical specifications, accuracy and design features in order to inform infection prevention and control and innovation development. Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Proquest, IndMed and the WHO and Campbell libraries will be searched. We will include studies reporting on field evaluations, including within-study comparisons against a reference standard, and laboratory evaluations reporting on product validation against field stool or water samples. We will extract data according to protocol and attempt meta-analyses if appropriate given data availability and quality. DISCUSSION:The systematic review builds on a previous scoping review in this field and expands upon this by synthesising data on both product technical characteristics and design features. The review will be of particular value to stakeholders engaged in diagnostic procurement and manufacturers interested in developing cholera or diarrheal disease diagnostics. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42016048428 .

Project description:IntroductionTuberculosis (TB) continues to be a significant health burden, most commonly affecting the lungs and referred to as pulmonary TB (PTB). Diagnostic techniques of PTB primarily rely on expectorated sputum samples. However, the diagnostic yields are often hindered due to insufficient volume and quality of the sputum specimens. Moreover, some individuals are unable to provide sputum samples due to scanty sputum production or difficulty in coughing up and require an invasive procedure to obtain a respiratory sample, such as bronchoscopic or gastric aspiration. Thus, challenges in the acquisition of respiratory specimens warrant an alternate specimen. Therefore, this systematic review aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a stool specimen for the diagnosis of PTB in adults.Methods and analysisWe will search MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science and Cochrane database from inception to April 2021 using a comprehensive search strategy. Two reviewers will independently perform screening, data extraction and quality assessment. The risk of bias assessment and applicability of results of eligible studies will be performed using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Bivariate random-effects models will be performed to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio along with 95% CI of stool specimen for each reported diagnostic method against any of the reference standard test (ie, mycobacterial culture or smear microscopy or Xpert assay using respiratory specimens). Heterogeneity between studies will be assessed by I2 statistics and Q statistic of the χ2 test.Ethics and disseminationThe results will be disseminated through publishing in a peer-reviewed medical journal and public presentations in relevant national and international conferences. As this is a systematic review of publicly available data, ethics approval is not required.Prospero registration numberCRD42021245203.

Project description:BackgroundKilled whole-cell oral cholera vaccines (kOCVs) are becoming a standard cholera control and prevention tool. However, vaccine efficacy and direct effectiveness estimates have varied, with differences in study design, location, follow-up duration, and vaccine composition posing challenges for public health decision making. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to generate average estimates of kOCV efficacy and direct effectiveness from the available literature.MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Review Library on July 9, 2016, and ISI Web of Science on July 11, 2016, for randomised controlled trials and observational studies that reported estimates of direct protection against medically attended confirmed cholera conferred by kOCVs. We included studies published on any date in English, Spanish, French, or Chinese. We extracted from the published reports the primary efficacy and effectiveness estimates from each study and also estimates according to number of vaccine doses, duration, and age group. The main study outcome was average efficacy and direct effectiveness of two kOCV doses, which we estimated with random-effect models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016048232.FindingsSeven trials (with 695 patients with cholera) and six observational studies (217 patients with cholera) met the inclusion criteria, with an average two-dose efficacy of 58% (95% CI 42-69, I2=58%) and effectiveness of 76% (62-85, I2=0). Average two-dose efficacy in children younger than 5 years (30% [95% CI 15-42], I2=0%) was lower than in those 5 years or older (64% [58-70], I2=0%; p<0·0001). Two-dose efficacy estimates of kOCV were similar during the first 2 years after vaccination, with estimates of 56% (95% CI 42-66, I2=45%) in the first year and 59% (49-67, I2=0) in the second year. The efficacy reduced to 39% (13 to 57, I2=48%) in the third year, and 26% (-46 to 63, I2=74%) in the fourth year.InterpretationTwo kOCV doses provide protection against cholera for at least 3 years. One kOCV dose provides at least short-term protection, which has important implications for outbreak management. kOCVs are effective tools for cholera control.FundingThe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:IntroductionThere is a pressing need for effective measures to prevent the spread of cholera. Our systematic review assesses the effects of chemoprophylaxis in preventing cholera among exposed contacts.Methods and findingsWe considered published and unpublished reports of studies up to July 2011. For this we searched: PubMed (1966 to July, 2011), Embase (1980 to July 2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (6; 2011), LILACS (1982 to July, 2011), the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (July 2011) and references of identified publications. We included controlled clinical trials (randomized and non-randomized) in which chemoprophylaxis was used to prevent cholera among patient contacts. The main outcome measures were hospitalization and laboratory diagnosis of cholera in contacts for cholera patients. We assessed the risk of bias. We identified 2638 references and these included 2 randomized trials and 5 controlled trials that added up to a total of 4,154 participants. The risk of bias scored high for most trials. The combined results from two trials found that chemoprophylaxis reduced hospitalization of contacts during the follow-up period by 8-12 days (2826 participants; RR 0.54 95% CI 0.40-0.74;I² 0%). A meta-analysis of five trials found a significant reduction in disease among contacts with at least one positive sample who received chemoprophylaxis during the overall follow-up (range 4-15 days) (1,414 participants; RR 0.35 95% CI 0.18-0.66;I² 74%). A significant reduction in the number of positive samples was also found with chemoprophylaxis (3 CCT; 6,918 samples; RR 0.39 95% CI 0.29-0.51;I² 0%).ConclusionOur findings suggest that chemoprophylaxis has a protective effect among household contacts of people with cholera but the results are based on studies with a high risk of bias. Hence, there is a need for adequate reliable research that allows balancing benefits and harms by evaluating the effects of chemoprophylaxis.

Project description:Case-control studies are conducted to identify cholera transmission routes. Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) exposures can facilitate cholera transmission (risk factors) or interrupt transmission (protective factors). To our knowledge, the association between WASH exposures and cholera from case-control studies has not been systematically analyzed. A systematic review was completed to close this gap, including describing the theory of risk and protection, developing inclusion criteria, searching and selecting studies, assessing quality of evidence, and summarizing associations between cholera and seven predicted WASH protective factors and eight predicted WASH risk factors using meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis. Overall, 47 articles describing 51 individual studies from 30 countries met the inclusion criteria. All eight predicted risk factors were associated with higher odds of cholera (odds ratio [OR] = 1.9-5.6), with heterogeneity (I2) of 0-92%. Of the predicted protective factors, five of seven were associated with lower odds of cholera (OR = 0.35-1.4), with heterogeneity of 57-91%; exceptions were insignificant associations for improved water source (OR = 1.1, heterogeneity 91%) and improved sanitation (OR = 1.4, heterogeneity 68%). Results were robust; 3/70 (5%) associations changed directionality or significance in sensitivity analysis. Meta-analysis results highlight that predicted risk factors are associated with cholera; however, predicted protective factors are not as consistently protective. This variable protection is attributed to 1) cholera transmission via multiple routes and 2) WASH intervention implementation quality variation. Water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions should address multiple transmission routes and be well implemented, according to international guidance, to ensure that field effectiveness matches theoretical efficacy. In addition, future case-control studies should detail WASH characteristics to contextualize results.