Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35988010›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2022

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the accuracy of rapid immunochromatographic tests for dengue diagnosis.

Jéssica V L Macêdo, Isaac A M Frias, Maria D L Oliveira, Fernando Zanghelini, César A S Andrade

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Dengue Fever—Diagnosis, Risk Stratification, and Treatment.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Dengue.Lancet (London, England) · 2024
    Review
  7. The greatest Dengue epidemic in Brazil: Surveillance, Prevention, and Control.Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical · 2024
    Review
  8. The One Health Concept.British journal of biomedical science · 2024
    Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jéssica V L MacêdoPrograma de Pós-Graduação Em Gestão E Economia da Saúde, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, 50670-901, Brazil.
Isaac A M FriasPrograma de Pós-Graduação Em Inovação Terapêutica, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, 50670-901, Brazil.
Maria D L OliveiraPrograma de Pós-Graduação Em Inovação Terapêutica, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, 50670-901, Brazil.
Fernando ZangheliniDepartamento de Bioquímica, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, 50670-901, Brazil.
César A S AndradePrograma de Pós-Graduação Em Gestão E Economia da Saúde, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, 50670-901, Brazil. csrandrade@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3271-2817
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid immunochromatographic tests are frequently used to diagnose dengue due to their easy use, low cost, and fast response. A high level of accuracy is essential for rapid diagnostic tests to support their large-scale use. Thus, this systematic review aims to evaluate the accuracy of rapid dengue diagnostic tests. The investigation was run through the following databases: LILACS, Medline (Pubmed), CRD, The Cochrane Library, Trip Medical Database, and Google Scholar. To solve difficulties, two independent reviewers performed document screening and selection. ELISA assay was adopted as a reference test because of several methodologic advantages. Seventeen articles were included accordingly, reckoning 6837 participating individuals. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and Forest Plot were conducted to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity for each analyzed parameter (anti-dengue IgM, IgG, and NS1 antigen). The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed as moderate using QUADAS-2 and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), respectively. The sensitivity of IgM concerning the studied tests ranged from 13.8 to 90%, while that of NS1 ranged from 14.7 to 100% (95% CI). The antibodies with NS1 presented increased sensitivity; pooled data show that the association of the three analytes bestows the best result, with a combined sensitivity of 90% (CI 95%: 87-92%) and a pooled specificity of 89% (CI 95%: 87-92%). Thus, the present review provides relevant knowledge for decision-making between available rapid diagnostic tests.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayHumansImmunoglobulin MROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityImmunoglobulin MAccuracyDengueELISALaboratory diagnosisRapid immunochromatographic tests

Identifiers

PMID35988010
OpenAlexW4293104254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.