Cargando…

Standardisation of lymphatic filariasis microfilaraemia prevalence estimates based on different diagnostic methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Lymphatic filariasis (LF) infection is generally diagnosed through parasitological identification of microfilariae (mf) in the blood. Although historically the most commonly used technique for counting mf is the thick blood smear based on 20 µl blood (TBS20), various other techniques and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vinkeles Melchers, Natalie V. S., Coffeng, Luc E., de Vlas, Sake J., Stolk, Wilma A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7288683/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32527335
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-020-04144-9
_version_ 1783545323474386944
author Vinkeles Melchers, Natalie V. S.
Coffeng, Luc E.
de Vlas, Sake J.
Stolk, Wilma A.
author_facet Vinkeles Melchers, Natalie V. S.
Coffeng, Luc E.
de Vlas, Sake J.
Stolk, Wilma A.
author_sort Vinkeles Melchers, Natalie V. S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Lymphatic filariasis (LF) infection is generally diagnosed through parasitological identification of microfilariae (mf) in the blood. Although historically the most commonly used technique for counting mf is the thick blood smear based on 20 µl blood (TBS20), various other techniques and blood volumes have been applied. It is therefore a challenge to compare mf prevalence estimates from different LF-survey data. Our objective was to standardise microfilaraemia (mf) prevalence estimates to TBS20 as the reference diagnostic technique. METHODS: We first performed a systematic review to identify studies reporting on comparative mf prevalence data as measured by more than one diagnostic test, including TBS20, on the same study population. Associations between mf prevalences based on different diagnostic techniques were quantified in terms of odds ratios (OR, with TBS20 blood as reference), using a meta-regression model. RESULTS: We identified 606 articles matching our search strategy and included 14 in our analyses. The OR of the mf prevalences as measured by the more sensitive counting chamber technique (≥ 50 µl blood) was 2.90 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.60–5.28). For membrane filtration (1 ml blood) the OR was 2.39 (95% CI: 1.62–3.53), Knott’s technique it was 1.54 (95% CI: 0.72–3.29), and for TBS in ≥ 40 µl blood it was 1.37 (95% CI: 0.81–2.30). CONCLUSIONS: We provided transformation factors to standardise mf prevalence estimates as detected by different diagnostic techniques to mf prevalence estimates as measured by TBS20. This will facilitate the use and comparison of more datasets in meta-analyses and geographic mapping initiatives across countries and over time. [Image: see text]
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7288683
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72886832020-06-12 Standardisation of lymphatic filariasis microfilaraemia prevalence estimates based on different diagnostic methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis Vinkeles Melchers, Natalie V. S. Coffeng, Luc E. de Vlas, Sake J. Stolk, Wilma A. Parasit Vectors Research BACKGROUND: Lymphatic filariasis (LF) infection is generally diagnosed through parasitological identification of microfilariae (mf) in the blood. Although historically the most commonly used technique for counting mf is the thick blood smear based on 20 µl blood (TBS20), various other techniques and blood volumes have been applied. It is therefore a challenge to compare mf prevalence estimates from different LF-survey data. Our objective was to standardise microfilaraemia (mf) prevalence estimates to TBS20 as the reference diagnostic technique. METHODS: We first performed a systematic review to identify studies reporting on comparative mf prevalence data as measured by more than one diagnostic test, including TBS20, on the same study population. Associations between mf prevalences based on different diagnostic techniques were quantified in terms of odds ratios (OR, with TBS20 blood as reference), using a meta-regression model. RESULTS: We identified 606 articles matching our search strategy and included 14 in our analyses. The OR of the mf prevalences as measured by the more sensitive counting chamber technique (≥ 50 µl blood) was 2.90 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.60–5.28). For membrane filtration (1 ml blood) the OR was 2.39 (95% CI: 1.62–3.53), Knott’s technique it was 1.54 (95% CI: 0.72–3.29), and for TBS in ≥ 40 µl blood it was 1.37 (95% CI: 0.81–2.30). CONCLUSIONS: We provided transformation factors to standardise mf prevalence estimates as detected by different diagnostic techniques to mf prevalence estimates as measured by TBS20. This will facilitate the use and comparison of more datasets in meta-analyses and geographic mapping initiatives across countries and over time. [Image: see text] BioMed Central 2020-06-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7288683/ /pubmed/32527335 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-020-04144-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Vinkeles Melchers, Natalie V. S.
Coffeng, Luc E.
de Vlas, Sake J.
Stolk, Wilma A.
Standardisation of lymphatic filariasis microfilaraemia prevalence estimates based on different diagnostic methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Standardisation of lymphatic filariasis microfilaraemia prevalence estimates based on different diagnostic methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Standardisation of lymphatic filariasis microfilaraemia prevalence estimates based on different diagnostic methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Standardisation of lymphatic filariasis microfilaraemia prevalence estimates based on different diagnostic methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Standardisation of lymphatic filariasis microfilaraemia prevalence estimates based on different diagnostic methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Standardisation of lymphatic filariasis microfilaraemia prevalence estimates based on different diagnostic methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort standardisation of lymphatic filariasis microfilaraemia prevalence estimates based on different diagnostic methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7288683/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32527335
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-020-04144-9
work_keys_str_mv AT vinkelesmelchersnatalievs standardisationoflymphaticfilariasismicrofilaraemiaprevalenceestimatesbasedondifferentdiagnosticmethodsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT coffengluce standardisationoflymphaticfilariasismicrofilaraemiaprevalenceestimatesbasedondifferentdiagnosticmethodsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT devlassakej standardisationoflymphaticfilariasismicrofilaraemiaprevalenceestimatesbasedondifferentdiagnosticmethodsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT stolkwilmaa standardisationoflymphaticfilariasismicrofilaraemiaprevalenceestimatesbasedondifferentdiagnosticmethodsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis