Cargando…

Are Treponema pallidum Specific Rapid and Point-of-Care Tests for Syphilis Accurate Enough for Screening in Resource Limited Settings? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Rapid and point-of-care (POC) tests for syphilis are an invaluable screening tool, yet inadequate evaluation of their diagnostic accuracy against best reference standards limits their widespread global uptake. To fill this gap, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evalu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jafari, Yalda, Peeling, Rosanna W., Shivkumar, Sushmita, Claessens, Christiane, Joseph, Lawrence, Pai, Nitika Pant
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3582640/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23468842
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054695
_version_ 1782260609519190016
author Jafari, Yalda
Peeling, Rosanna W.
Shivkumar, Sushmita
Claessens, Christiane
Joseph, Lawrence
Pai, Nitika Pant
author_facet Jafari, Yalda
Peeling, Rosanna W.
Shivkumar, Sushmita
Claessens, Christiane
Joseph, Lawrence
Pai, Nitika Pant
author_sort Jafari, Yalda
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Rapid and point-of-care (POC) tests for syphilis are an invaluable screening tool, yet inadequate evaluation of their diagnostic accuracy against best reference standards limits their widespread global uptake. To fill this gap, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of rapid and POC tests in blood and serum samples against Treponema pallidum (TP) specific reference standards. METHODS: Five electronic databases (1980–2012) were searched, data was extracted from 33 articles, and Bayesian hierarchical models were fit. RESULTS: In serum samples, against a TP specific reference standard point estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI) for the sensitivities of popular tests were: i) Determine, 90.04% (80.45, 95.21), ii) SD Bioline, 87.06% (75.67, 94.50), iii) VisiTect, 85.13% (72.83, 92.57), and iv) Syphicheck, 74.48% (56.85, 88.44), while specificities were: i) Syphicheck, 99.14% (96.37, 100), ii) Visitect, 96.45% (91.92, 99.29), iii) SD Bioline, 95.85% (89.89, 99.53), and iv) Determine, 94.15% (89.26, 97.66). In whole blood samples, sensitivities were: i) Determine, 86.32% (77.26, 91.70), ii) SD Bioline, 84.50% (78.81, 92.61), iii) Syphicheck, 74.47% (63.94, 82.13), and iv) VisiTect, 74.26% (53.62, 83.68), while specificities were: i) Syphicheck, 99.58% (98.91, 99.96), ii) VisiTect, 99.43% (98.22, 99.98), iii) SD Bioline, 97.95%(92.54, 99.33), and iv) Determine, 95.85% (92.42, 97.74). CONCLUSIONS: Rapid and POC treponemal tests reported sensitivity and specificity estimates comparable to laboratory-based treponemal tests. In resource limited settings, where access to screening is limited and where risk of patients lost to follow up is high, the introduction of these tests has already been shown to improve access to screening and treatment to prevent stillbirths and neonatal mortality due to congenital syphilis. Based on the evidence, it is concluded that rapid and POC tests are useful in resource limited settings with poor access to laboratories or screening for syphilis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3582640
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35826402013-03-06 Are Treponema pallidum Specific Rapid and Point-of-Care Tests for Syphilis Accurate Enough for Screening in Resource Limited Settings? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis Jafari, Yalda Peeling, Rosanna W. Shivkumar, Sushmita Claessens, Christiane Joseph, Lawrence Pai, Nitika Pant PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Rapid and point-of-care (POC) tests for syphilis are an invaluable screening tool, yet inadequate evaluation of their diagnostic accuracy against best reference standards limits their widespread global uptake. To fill this gap, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of rapid and POC tests in blood and serum samples against Treponema pallidum (TP) specific reference standards. METHODS: Five electronic databases (1980–2012) were searched, data was extracted from 33 articles, and Bayesian hierarchical models were fit. RESULTS: In serum samples, against a TP specific reference standard point estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI) for the sensitivities of popular tests were: i) Determine, 90.04% (80.45, 95.21), ii) SD Bioline, 87.06% (75.67, 94.50), iii) VisiTect, 85.13% (72.83, 92.57), and iv) Syphicheck, 74.48% (56.85, 88.44), while specificities were: i) Syphicheck, 99.14% (96.37, 100), ii) Visitect, 96.45% (91.92, 99.29), iii) SD Bioline, 95.85% (89.89, 99.53), and iv) Determine, 94.15% (89.26, 97.66). In whole blood samples, sensitivities were: i) Determine, 86.32% (77.26, 91.70), ii) SD Bioline, 84.50% (78.81, 92.61), iii) Syphicheck, 74.47% (63.94, 82.13), and iv) VisiTect, 74.26% (53.62, 83.68), while specificities were: i) Syphicheck, 99.58% (98.91, 99.96), ii) VisiTect, 99.43% (98.22, 99.98), iii) SD Bioline, 97.95%(92.54, 99.33), and iv) Determine, 95.85% (92.42, 97.74). CONCLUSIONS: Rapid and POC treponemal tests reported sensitivity and specificity estimates comparable to laboratory-based treponemal tests. In resource limited settings, where access to screening is limited and where risk of patients lost to follow up is high, the introduction of these tests has already been shown to improve access to screening and treatment to prevent stillbirths and neonatal mortality due to congenital syphilis. Based on the evidence, it is concluded that rapid and POC tests are useful in resource limited settings with poor access to laboratories or screening for syphilis. Public Library of Science 2013-02-26 /pmc/articles/PMC3582640/ /pubmed/23468842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054695 Text en © 2013 Jafari et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Jafari, Yalda
Peeling, Rosanna W.
Shivkumar, Sushmita
Claessens, Christiane
Joseph, Lawrence
Pai, Nitika Pant
Are Treponema pallidum Specific Rapid and Point-of-Care Tests for Syphilis Accurate Enough for Screening in Resource Limited Settings? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis
title Are Treponema pallidum Specific Rapid and Point-of-Care Tests for Syphilis Accurate Enough for Screening in Resource Limited Settings? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis
title_full Are Treponema pallidum Specific Rapid and Point-of-Care Tests for Syphilis Accurate Enough for Screening in Resource Limited Settings? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Are Treponema pallidum Specific Rapid and Point-of-Care Tests for Syphilis Accurate Enough for Screening in Resource Limited Settings? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Are Treponema pallidum Specific Rapid and Point-of-Care Tests for Syphilis Accurate Enough for Screening in Resource Limited Settings? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis
title_short Are Treponema pallidum Specific Rapid and Point-of-Care Tests for Syphilis Accurate Enough for Screening in Resource Limited Settings? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis
title_sort are treponema pallidum specific rapid and point-of-care tests for syphilis accurate enough for screening in resource limited settings? evidence from a meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3582640/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23468842
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054695
work_keys_str_mv AT jafariyalda aretreponemapallidumspecificrapidandpointofcaretestsforsyphilisaccurateenoughforscreeninginresourcelimitedsettingsevidencefromametaanalysis
AT peelingrosannaw aretreponemapallidumspecificrapidandpointofcaretestsforsyphilisaccurateenoughforscreeninginresourcelimitedsettingsevidencefromametaanalysis
AT shivkumarsushmita aretreponemapallidumspecificrapidandpointofcaretestsforsyphilisaccurateenoughforscreeninginresourcelimitedsettingsevidencefromametaanalysis
AT claessenschristiane aretreponemapallidumspecificrapidandpointofcaretestsforsyphilisaccurateenoughforscreeninginresourcelimitedsettingsevidencefromametaanalysis
AT josephlawrence aretreponemapallidumspecificrapidandpointofcaretestsforsyphilisaccurateenoughforscreeninginresourcelimitedsettingsevidencefromametaanalysis
AT painitikapant aretreponemapallidumspecificrapidandpointofcaretestsforsyphilisaccurateenoughforscreeninginresourcelimitedsettingsevidencefromametaanalysis