Performance of point-of-care tests for the detection of chlamydia trachomatis infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

background

methodsWe searched PubMed/Medline and Embase databases, from January 2004 to May 2021, for studies reporting the performance of POCTs for identifying CT using specimens collected from urethral, vaginal, cervical, anorectal, or pharyngeal site or of urine. Two investigators independently screened and extracted data for controlling the quality of data extraction. Any discrepancies in study selection and data extraction were resolved through consensus. We only included studies with sufficient data to estimate sensitivity and specificity, and used laboratory-based nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) as the reference standard. The main outcomes were pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Summary estimates were calculated using a random-effects model and summary receiver operator curves (SROCs) were generated using the Moses-Littenberg method. STATA 14.0 and Meta-DiSc 1.4 were used for statistical analysis. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019140544.

findingsOf 3,038 records identified, 39 studies (42,336 specimens) were included in the study, including 14 studies on evaluation of antigen detection (AD)-based and 25 on NAAT-based POCTs. The overall pooled sensitivity, specificity and DOR were 56% (95% CI 45%-67%), 99% (95% CI 98%-99%) and 86 (95% CI 46-163), respectively, for AD-based POCTs and corresponding values for NAAT-based POCTs were 94% (95% CI 91%-96%), 99% (95% CI 99%-99%) and 1,933(95% CI 1,018-3,669), respectively. The pooled sensitivity of AD-based POCTs varied across the types of specimens, indicating 46% for cervical swabs (95% CI 37%-56%; range 22.7%-71.4%), 52% for vaginal swabs (95% CI 34%-70%; range 17.1%-86.8%) and 57% for male urine (95% CI 36%-75%; range 20.0%-82.6%). For NAAT-based POCTs, the pooled sensitivity was 94% (95% CI 90%-96%) for cervical swabs, 94% (95% CI 86%-98%) for vaginal swabs, 95% (95% CI 91%-97%) for urine specimens and 93% (95% CI 87%-96%) for anorectal swabs.

interpretationNAAT-based POCTs for CT have a significantly better performance particularly in sensitivity for diagnosing the infection with CT than the AD-based POCTs. Screening strategy with AD-based POCTs may potentially result in a substantial under-detection of the infections.