Cargando…

Reliability of HIV rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing compared with testing by health-care workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The ability of individuals to use HIV self-tests correctly is debated. To inform the 2016 WHO recommendation on HIV self-testing, we assessed the reliability and performance of HIV rapid diagnostic tests when used by self-testers. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Figueroa, Carmen, Johnson, Cheryl, Ford, Nathan, Sands, Anita, Dalal, Shona, Meurant, Robyn, Prat, Irena, Hatzold, Karin, Urassa, Willy, Baggaley, Rachel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier B.V 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5986793/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29703707
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3018(18)30044-4
_version_ 1783328985703251968
author Figueroa, Carmen
Johnson, Cheryl
Ford, Nathan
Sands, Anita
Dalal, Shona
Meurant, Robyn
Prat, Irena
Hatzold, Karin
Urassa, Willy
Baggaley, Rachel
author_facet Figueroa, Carmen
Johnson, Cheryl
Ford, Nathan
Sands, Anita
Dalal, Shona
Meurant, Robyn
Prat, Irena
Hatzold, Karin
Urassa, Willy
Baggaley, Rachel
author_sort Figueroa, Carmen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The ability of individuals to use HIV self-tests correctly is debated. To inform the 2016 WHO recommendation on HIV self-testing, we assessed the reliability and performance of HIV rapid diagnostic tests when used by self-testers. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, PopLine, and Embase, conference abstracts, and additional grey literature between Jan 1, 1995, and April 30, 2016, for observational and experimental studies reporting on HIV self-testing performance. We excluded studies evaluating home specimen collection because patients did not interpret their own test results. We extracted data independently, using standardised extraction forms. Outcomes of interest were agreement between self-testers and health-care workers, sensitivity, and specificity. We calculated κ to establish the level of agreement and pooled κ estimates using a random-effects model, by approach (directly assisted or unassisted) and type of specimen (blood or oral fluid). We examined heterogeneity with the I(2) statistic. FINDINGS: 25 studies met inclusion criteria (22 to 5662 participants). Quality assessment with QUADAS-2 showed studies had low risk of bias and incomplete reporting in accordance with the STARD checklist. Raw proportion of agreement ranged from 85·4% to 100%, and reported κ ranged from fair (κ 0·277, p<0·001) to almost perfect (κ 0·99, n=25). Pooled κ suggested almost perfect agreement for both types of approaches (directly assisted 0·98, 95% CI 0·96–0·99 and unassisted 0·97, 0·96–0·98; I(2)=34·5%, 0–97·8). Excluding two outliers, sensitivity and specificity was higher for blood-based rapid diagnostic tests (4/16) compared with oral fluid rapid diagnostic tests (13/16). The most common error that affected test performance was incorrect specimen collection (oral swab or finger prick). Study limitations included the use of different reference standards and no disaggregation of results by individuals taking antiretrovirals. INTERPRETATION: Self-testers can reliably and accurately do HIV rapid diagnostic tests, as compared with trained health-care workers. Errors in performance might be reduced through the improvement of rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing, particularly to make sample collection easier and to simplify instructions for use. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Unitaid.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5986793
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Elsevier B.V
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59867932018-06-05 Reliability of HIV rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing compared with testing by health-care workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis Figueroa, Carmen Johnson, Cheryl Ford, Nathan Sands, Anita Dalal, Shona Meurant, Robyn Prat, Irena Hatzold, Karin Urassa, Willy Baggaley, Rachel Lancet HIV Article BACKGROUND: The ability of individuals to use HIV self-tests correctly is debated. To inform the 2016 WHO recommendation on HIV self-testing, we assessed the reliability and performance of HIV rapid diagnostic tests when used by self-testers. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, PopLine, and Embase, conference abstracts, and additional grey literature between Jan 1, 1995, and April 30, 2016, for observational and experimental studies reporting on HIV self-testing performance. We excluded studies evaluating home specimen collection because patients did not interpret their own test results. We extracted data independently, using standardised extraction forms. Outcomes of interest were agreement between self-testers and health-care workers, sensitivity, and specificity. We calculated κ to establish the level of agreement and pooled κ estimates using a random-effects model, by approach (directly assisted or unassisted) and type of specimen (blood or oral fluid). We examined heterogeneity with the I(2) statistic. FINDINGS: 25 studies met inclusion criteria (22 to 5662 participants). Quality assessment with QUADAS-2 showed studies had low risk of bias and incomplete reporting in accordance with the STARD checklist. Raw proportion of agreement ranged from 85·4% to 100%, and reported κ ranged from fair (κ 0·277, p<0·001) to almost perfect (κ 0·99, n=25). Pooled κ suggested almost perfect agreement for both types of approaches (directly assisted 0·98, 95% CI 0·96–0·99 and unassisted 0·97, 0·96–0·98; I(2)=34·5%, 0–97·8). Excluding two outliers, sensitivity and specificity was higher for blood-based rapid diagnostic tests (4/16) compared with oral fluid rapid diagnostic tests (13/16). The most common error that affected test performance was incorrect specimen collection (oral swab or finger prick). Study limitations included the use of different reference standards and no disaggregation of results by individuals taking antiretrovirals. INTERPRETATION: Self-testers can reliably and accurately do HIV rapid diagnostic tests, as compared with trained health-care workers. Errors in performance might be reduced through the improvement of rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing, particularly to make sample collection easier and to simplify instructions for use. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Unitaid. Elsevier B.V 2018-04-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5986793/ /pubmed/29703707 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3018(18)30044-4 Text en © 2018 World Health Oranization http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Figueroa, Carmen
Johnson, Cheryl
Ford, Nathan
Sands, Anita
Dalal, Shona
Meurant, Robyn
Prat, Irena
Hatzold, Karin
Urassa, Willy
Baggaley, Rachel
Reliability of HIV rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing compared with testing by health-care workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Reliability of HIV rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing compared with testing by health-care workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Reliability of HIV rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing compared with testing by health-care workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Reliability of HIV rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing compared with testing by health-care workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Reliability of HIV rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing compared with testing by health-care workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Reliability of HIV rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing compared with testing by health-care workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort reliability of hiv rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing compared with testing by health-care workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5986793/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29703707
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3018(18)30044-4
work_keys_str_mv AT figueroacarmen reliabilityofhivrapiddiagnostictestsforselftestingcomparedwithtestingbyhealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT johnsoncheryl reliabilityofhivrapiddiagnostictestsforselftestingcomparedwithtestingbyhealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT fordnathan reliabilityofhivrapiddiagnostictestsforselftestingcomparedwithtestingbyhealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT sandsanita reliabilityofhivrapiddiagnostictestsforselftestingcomparedwithtestingbyhealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dalalshona reliabilityofhivrapiddiagnostictestsforselftestingcomparedwithtestingbyhealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT meurantrobyn reliabilityofhivrapiddiagnostictestsforselftestingcomparedwithtestingbyhealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT pratirena reliabilityofhivrapiddiagnostictestsforselftestingcomparedwithtestingbyhealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hatzoldkarin reliabilityofhivrapiddiagnostictestsforselftestingcomparedwithtestingbyhealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT urassawilly reliabilityofhivrapiddiagnostictestsforselftestingcomparedwithtestingbyhealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT baggaleyrachel reliabilityofhivrapiddiagnostictestsforselftestingcomparedwithtestingbyhealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis