Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30664935›Full record

SynthesisClinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases2019

Rapid diagnostic tests for determining dengue serostatus: a systematic review and key informant interviews.

R Luo, N Fongwen, C Kelly-Cirino, E Harris, A Wilder-Smith, R W Peeling

Open access · hybridAbstract readEvaluation StudySystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

R LuoInternational Diagnostics Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Electronic address: rluodx@gmail.com.
N FongwenInternational Diagnostics Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
C Kelly-CirinoFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Geneva, Switzerland.
E HarrisDivision of Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
A Wilder-SmithWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; Department for Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
R W PeelingInternational Diagnostics Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics · CHUniversity of California, Berkeley · USWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

T Cell Responses Following DENV Natural Infections and Live-Attenuated Dengue Virus VaccinationP01AI106695 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI Eva Harris · 2015 to 2026
$34.1M
NIAID NIH HHS P01 AI106695World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesVaccination for dengue with the live attenuated tetravalent CYD-TDV vaccine (Dengvaxia®) is only recommended in individuals who have had prior dengue virus (DENV) infection. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) for past DENV infection would offer a convenient method for pre-vaccination screening at point-of-care. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the performance of current dengue RDTs for determining dengue serostatus, using IgG antibodies against DENV as a marker of past infection.

methodsPubMed and EMBASE databases were searched from 2000 to 2018 to identify studies evaluating dengue RDTs in individuals with known or possible previous DENV infection. Study quality was evaluated using GRADE and QUADAS-2 criteria. Semi-structured interviews were also performed with available dengue RDT manufacturers.

resultsThe performance of four dengue IgG RDTs was determined in 3137 individuals across ten studies conducted in 13 countries, with serum used in most of the studies. No studies reported data for determining dengue serostatus, and limited data were available regarding cross-reactivity with other viruses. The majority of studies demonstrated sensitivities and specificities between 80% and 100% for dengue IgG detection in samples from secondary infection or convalescent time-points after recent infection.

conclusionsAlthough current dengue IgG RDTs have shown reasonable performance compared with laboratory-based tests in secondary infection, additional research is needed to determine how RDTs would perform in relevant populations targeted for vaccination. New RDTs or modifications to current RDTs are feasible and may optimize the performance of these tests for use in a pre-vaccination screening approach.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, ViralChildChild, PreschoolDengueDengue VirusFemaleHumansImmunoassayImmunoglobulin GInfantInfant, NewbornInterviews as TopicAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin GDengueImmunoglobulin GRapid diagnostic testVaccine

Identifiers

PMID30664935
PMCPMC6543064
OpenAlexW2909099750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.