Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31324229›Full record

SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2019

Sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests for Lassa fever: a systematic review.

Noah Fongwen Takah, Polina Brangel, Priyanka Shrestha, Rosanna Peeling

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Lassa Virus Genetics.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

4 authors.

Noah Fongwen TakahInternational Diagnostics Centre Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Noah.Fongwen@lshtm.ac.uk.
Polina BrangelLondon Centre for Nanotechnology, University College London, London, UK.
Priyanka ShresthaInternational Diagnostics Centre, Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Rosanna PeelingInternational Diagnostics Centre, Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/K031953/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLassa fever virus has been enlisted as a priority pathogen of epidemic potential by the World Health organization Research and Development (WHO R & D) Blueprint. Diagnostics play a crucial role in epidemic preparedness. This systematic review was conducted to determine the sensitivity and specificity of Lassa fever diagnostic tests for humans.

methodsWe searched OVID Medline, OVID Embase, Scopus and Web of Science for laboratory based and field studies that reported the performance of diagnostic tests for Lassa fever in humans from 1 January 1990 to 25 January 2019. Two reviewers independently screened all the studies and included only studies that involved the evaluation of a Lassa fever diagnostic test and provided data on the sensitivity and specificity. The quality of the studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 criteria. Data on the study location, study design, type of sample, index test, reference tests and diagnostic performance were extracted from the studies.

resultsOut of a total of 1947 records identified, 1245 non-duplicate citations were obtained. Twenty-six (26) full-text articles examined which identified 08 studies meeting pre-defined criteria. Only one study was a field evaluation study. The sensitivity and specificity of the point of care (RDT) against the Nikisins qPCR were 91.2%(95% CI:75.2-97.7) and 86%(95% CI: 71.4-94.2) at temperatures 18-30 °C, while the sensitivity and specificity of the single IgM ELISA assay against standard RT-PCR were 31.1%(95%CI: 25.6-37) and 95.7%(95%CI:92.8-97.7). The sensitivity of the combined ELISA Antigen/IgM assay(against virus isolation), the recombinant IgM/IgG ELISA(against standard RT-PCR), and the IgM/IgG immunoblot(against IFA) were 88%(95%CI:77-95), 25.9%(95%CI:20.8-31.6), and 90.7%(95%CI:84.13-97.27) respectively. The specificity of the combined ELISA Antigen/IgM assay(against virus isolation), the recombinant IgM/IgG ELISA(against standard RT-PCR), and the IgM/IgG immunoblot(against IFA) were 90%(95%CI:88-91), 100%(95%CI:98.2-100), and 96.3%(95%CI:92.2-100) respectively.

conclusionLassa fever has assays for antigenaemia, IgM, IgG and PCR detection. The RDT reportedly performed well but more data are needed from other countries and at temperatures above 30 °C. Most combined immunoassays perform better than the single IgM. Multiplex and pan-Lassa assays are needed. More well conducted field studies are needed.

trial registrationProspero registration number: CRD42018091585 .

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayHumansImmunoblottingLassa FeverLassa virusPoint-of-Care SystemsPolymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityDiagnosticsLassaSensitivitySpecificity

Identifiers

PMID31324229
PMCPMC6642489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.