Systematic review with meta-analysis: the accuracy of serological tests to support the diagnosis of coeliac disease.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
There is growing support for a biopsy avoidant approach to diagnose coeliac disease in both children and adults, using a serological diagnosis instead.Aims
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coeliac disease in adults and children.Methods
Seven 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.Results
113 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).Conclusions
Anti-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.
SUBMITTER: Sheppard AL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9305515 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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: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 specificity of serological HDV tests against PCR as a reference standard were included. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for each test method and sero-marker were calculated. The review included six studies with 11 study arms, evaluating ARCHITECT immunoassay, EIA, ELISA, QMAC, RIA, and Western Blot test methods targeting Anti-HDV IgG, Total anti-HDV and Anti-HDV IgM. Sensitivities for Anti-HDV IgG, Total Anti-HDV and Anti-HDV IgM, tests were 97.4%, 51.9%, and 62.0%, respectively, with specificities of 95.3%, 80.0%, and 85.0%. Our findings, with its limited number of studies, suggest that HDV serological tests, particularly those identifying Anti IgG exhibit high accuracy and can serve as effective screening tools for HDV.
| S-EPMC11316141 | 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: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:It has been suggested that in doubtful cases of coeliac disease, a high CD3+ T-cell receptor gamma delta+ (TCRγδ+) intraepithelial lymphocyte count increases the likelihood of coeliac disease. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of both an isolated increase of TCRγδ+ cells and a coeliac lymphogram (increase of TCRγδ+plus decrease of CD3- intraepithelial lymphocytes) evaluated by flow cytometry in the diagnosis of coeliac disease. The literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The inclusion criteria were: an article that allows for the construction of a 2 × 2 table of true and false positive and true and false negative values. A diagnostic accuracy test meta-analysis was performed. The search provided 49 relevant citations, of which 6 were selected for the analysis, which represented 519 patients and 440 controls. Coeliac lymphogram: The pooled S and Sp were 93% and 98%, without heterogeneity. The area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99). TCRγδ+: Pooled S and Sp were both 95%, with significant heterogeneity. The AUC was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98). Conclusions: Both TCRγδ+ count and coeliac lymphogram assessed by flow cytometry in duodenal mucosal samples are associated with a high level of diagnostic accuracy for and against coeliac disease.
| S-EPMC6769802 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCoeliac disease (CD) is a systemic immune-mediated disorder triggered by gluten in genetically predisposed individuals. CD is diagnosed using a combination of serology tests and endoscopic biopsy of the small intestine. However, because of non-specific symptoms and heterogeneous clinical presentation, diagnosing CD is challenging. Early detection of CD through improved case-finding strategies can improve the response to a gluten-free diet, patients' quality of life and potentially reduce the risk of complications. However, there is a lack of consensus in which groups may benefit from active case-finding.Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic review to determine the accuracy of diagnostic indicators (such as symptoms and risk factors) for CD in adults and children, and thus can help identify patients who should be offered CD testing. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science will be searched from 1997 until 2020. Screening will be performed in duplicate. Data extraction will be performed by one and checked by a second reviewer. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or referral to a third reviewer. We will produce a narrative summary of identified prediction models. Studies, where 2×2 data can be extracted or reconstructed, will be treated as diagnostic accuracy studies, that is, the diagnostic indicators are the index tests and CD serology and/or biopsy is the reference standard. For each diagnostic indicator, we will perform a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of the sensitivity and specificity.Ethics and disseminationResults will be reported in peer-reviewed journals, academic and public presentations and social media. We will convene an implementation panel to advise on the optimum strategy for enhanced dissemination. We will discuss findings with Coeliac UK to help with dissemination to patients. Ethical approval is not applicable, as this is a systematic review and no research participants will be involved.Prospero registration numberCRD42020170766.
| S-EPMC7537462 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Serological methods should meet the needs of leishmaniasis diagnosis due to their high sensitivity and specificity, economical and adaptable rapid diagnostic test format, and ease of use. Currently, the performances of serological diagnostic tests, despite improvements with recombinant proteins, vary greatly depending on the clinical form of leishmaniasis and the endemic area. Peptide-based serological tests are promising as they could compensate for antigenic variability and improve performance, independently of Leishmania species and subspecies circulating in the endemic areas. The objective of this systematic review was to inventory all studies published from 2002 to 2022 that evaluate synthetic peptides for serological diagnosis of human leishmaniases and also to highlight the performance (e.g., sensitivity and specificity) of each peptide reported in these studies. All clinical forms of leishmaniasis, visceral and tegumentary, and all Leishmania species responsible for these diseases were considered. Following PRISMA statement recommendations, 1,405 studies were identified but only 22 articles met the selection criteria and were included in this systematic review. These original research articles described 77 different peptides, of which several have promising performance for visceral or tegumentary leishmaniasis diagnosis. This review highlights the importance of and growing interest in synthetic peptides used for serological diagnosis of leishmaniases, and their performances compared to some widely used tests with recombinant proteins.
| S-EPMC10069404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSerological (antibody detection) tests for tuberculosis (TB) are widely used in developing countries. As part of a World Health Organization policy process, we performed an updated systematic review to assess the diagnostic accuracy of commercial serological tests for pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB with a focus on the relevance of these tests in low- and middle-income countries.Methods and findingsWe used methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration and GRADE approach for rating quality of evidence. In a previous review, we searched multiple databases for papers published from 1 January 1990 to 30 May 2006, and in this update, we add additional papers published from that period until 29 June 2010. We prespecified subgroups to address heterogeneity and summarized test performance using bivariate random effects meta-analysis. For pulmonary TB, we included 67 studies (48% from low- and middle-income countries) with 5,147 participants. For all tests, estimates were variable for sensitivity (0% to 100%) and specificity (31% to 100%). For anda-TB IgG, the only test with enough studies for meta-analysis, pooled sensitivity was 76% (95% CI 63%-87%) in smear-positive (seven studies) and 59% (95% CI 10%-96%) in smear-negative (four studies) patients; pooled specificities were 92% (95% CI 74%-98%) and 91% (95% CI 79%-96%), respectively. Compared with ELISA (pooled sensitivity 60% [95% CI 6%-65%]; pooled specificity 98% [95% CI 96%-99%]), immunochromatographic tests yielded lower pooled sensitivity (53%, 95% CI 42%-64%) and comparable pooled specificity (98%, 95% CI 94%-99%). For extrapulmonary TB, we included 25 studies (40% from low- and middle-income countries) with 1,809 participants. For all tests, estimates were variable for sensitivity (0% to 100%) and specificity (59% to 100%). Overall, quality of evidence was graded very low for studies of pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB.ConclusionsDespite expansion of the literature since 2006, commercial serological tests continue to produce inconsistent and imprecise estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Quality of evidence remains very low. These data informed a recently published World Health Organization policy statement against serological tests. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
| S-EPMC3153457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate if the use of antitransglutaminase (tTG) and antiendomysium (EM) antibodies has modified the profile of coeliac disease (CD) in children.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingMonocentric study, in one major tertiary centre in Paris. Two cohorts of patients were compared; the first included patients before the use of antibodies, and the second included patients after the use of antibodies.ParticipantsAll patients from the same physician diagnosed with a CD between 1976 and 1992 (historical cohort), and between 1994 and 2007, were included in the study. 56 patients were included in the historical cohort, 59 in the recent cohort.Primary and secondary outcome measuresClinical, biological and histological profiles at diagnosis have been studied.ResultsThe recent cohort diagnosis of CD was based in 27% on a systematic screening (type I diabetes, n=10; CD in siblings, n=6). On comparison of CD patients in the historical to the recent cohort, the following significant differences were observed: Median age at diagnosis increased from 1 year to 2.7 years (p<0.0001). Patients in the historical cohort had more gastrointestinal symptoms (93% vs 63%, p=0.0001) and failure to thrive (98% vs 80%, p=0.0025). Nutritional deficiencies and morphological lesions were more severe in the historical cohort (90% subtotal or total villous atrophy vs 51%, p<0.0001). Differences observed between the two cohorts were mainly due to the presence of screened patients.ConclusionsA new type of patients, with a paucisymptomatic or asymptomatic CD, has been identified using serological tests. Silent disease has been diagnosed by screening in a target population. In the other patients of the recent cohort, symptoms were similar but less severe than those observed before. Long-term risks of untreated silent CD are not well determined as yet, and have to be evaluated in prospective studies.
| S-EPMC3532964 | 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