Cargando…
Cholera Rapid Diagnostic Tests for the Detection of Vibrio cholerae O1: An Updated Meta-Analysis
The rapid diagnosis of cholera contributes to adequate outbreak management. This meta-analysis assesses the diagnostic accuracy of cholera rapid tests (RDTs) to detect Vibrio cholerae O1. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched four databases (Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and W...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8622830/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34829444 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11112095 |
_version_ | 1784605785846710272 |
---|---|
author | Muzembo, Basilua Andre Kitahara, Kei Ohno, Ayumu Debnath, Anusuya Okamoto, Keinosuke Miyoshi, Shin-Ichi |
author_facet | Muzembo, Basilua Andre Kitahara, Kei Ohno, Ayumu Debnath, Anusuya Okamoto, Keinosuke Miyoshi, Shin-Ichi |
author_sort | Muzembo, Basilua Andre |
collection | PubMed |
description | The rapid diagnosis of cholera contributes to adequate outbreak management. This meta-analysis assesses the diagnostic accuracy of cholera rapid tests (RDTs) to detect Vibrio cholerae O1. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched four databases (Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Web of Science up to 8 September 2021) for studies that evaluated cholera RDTs for the detection of V. cholerae O1 compared with either stool culture or polymerase chain reaction (PCR). We assessed the studies’ quality using the QUADAS-2 criteria. In addition, in this update, GRADE approach was used to rate the overall certainty of the evidence. We performed a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of cholera RDTs. Results: Overall, 20 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Studies were from Africa (n = 11), Asia (n = 7), and America (Haiti; n = 2). They evaluated eight RDTs (Crystal VC-O1, Crystal VC, Cholkit, Institut Pasteur cholera dipstick, SD Bioline, Artron, Cholera Smart O1, and Smart II Cholera O1). Using direct specimen testing, sensitivity and specificity of RDTs were 90% (95% CI, 86 to 93) and 86% (95% CI, 81 to 90), respectively. Cholera Sensitivity was higher in studies conducted in Africa [92% (95% CI, 89 to 94)] compared with Asia [82% (95% CI, 77 to 87)]. However, specificity [83% (95% CI, 71 to 91)] was lower in Africa compared with Asia [90% (95% CI, 84 to 94)]. GRADE quality of evidence was estimated as moderate. Conclusions: Against culture or PCR, current cholera RDTs have moderate sensitivity and specificity for detecting Vibrio cholerae O1. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8622830 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86228302021-11-27 Cholera Rapid Diagnostic Tests for the Detection of Vibrio cholerae O1: An Updated Meta-Analysis Muzembo, Basilua Andre Kitahara, Kei Ohno, Ayumu Debnath, Anusuya Okamoto, Keinosuke Miyoshi, Shin-Ichi Diagnostics (Basel) Review The rapid diagnosis of cholera contributes to adequate outbreak management. This meta-analysis assesses the diagnostic accuracy of cholera rapid tests (RDTs) to detect Vibrio cholerae O1. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched four databases (Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Web of Science up to 8 September 2021) for studies that evaluated cholera RDTs for the detection of V. cholerae O1 compared with either stool culture or polymerase chain reaction (PCR). We assessed the studies’ quality using the QUADAS-2 criteria. In addition, in this update, GRADE approach was used to rate the overall certainty of the evidence. We performed a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of cholera RDTs. Results: Overall, 20 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Studies were from Africa (n = 11), Asia (n = 7), and America (Haiti; n = 2). They evaluated eight RDTs (Crystal VC-O1, Crystal VC, Cholkit, Institut Pasteur cholera dipstick, SD Bioline, Artron, Cholera Smart O1, and Smart II Cholera O1). Using direct specimen testing, sensitivity and specificity of RDTs were 90% (95% CI, 86 to 93) and 86% (95% CI, 81 to 90), respectively. Cholera Sensitivity was higher in studies conducted in Africa [92% (95% CI, 89 to 94)] compared with Asia [82% (95% CI, 77 to 87)]. However, specificity [83% (95% CI, 71 to 91)] was lower in Africa compared with Asia [90% (95% CI, 84 to 94)]. GRADE quality of evidence was estimated as moderate. Conclusions: Against culture or PCR, current cholera RDTs have moderate sensitivity and specificity for detecting Vibrio cholerae O1. MDPI 2021-11-13 /pmc/articles/PMC8622830/ /pubmed/34829444 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11112095 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Muzembo, Basilua Andre Kitahara, Kei Ohno, Ayumu Debnath, Anusuya Okamoto, Keinosuke Miyoshi, Shin-Ichi Cholera Rapid Diagnostic Tests for the Detection of Vibrio cholerae O1: An Updated Meta-Analysis |
title | Cholera Rapid Diagnostic Tests for the Detection of Vibrio cholerae O1: An Updated Meta-Analysis |
title_full | Cholera Rapid Diagnostic Tests for the Detection of Vibrio cholerae O1: An Updated Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | Cholera Rapid Diagnostic Tests for the Detection of Vibrio cholerae O1: An Updated Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Cholera Rapid Diagnostic Tests for the Detection of Vibrio cholerae O1: An Updated Meta-Analysis |
title_short | Cholera Rapid Diagnostic Tests for the Detection of Vibrio cholerae O1: An Updated Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | cholera rapid diagnostic tests for the detection of vibrio cholerae o1: an updated meta-analysis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8622830/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34829444 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11112095 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT muzembobasiluaandre cholerarapiddiagnostictestsforthedetectionofvibriocholeraeo1anupdatedmetaanalysis AT kitaharakei cholerarapiddiagnostictestsforthedetectionofvibriocholeraeo1anupdatedmetaanalysis AT ohnoayumu cholerarapiddiagnostictestsforthedetectionofvibriocholeraeo1anupdatedmetaanalysis AT debnathanusuya cholerarapiddiagnostictestsforthedetectionofvibriocholeraeo1anupdatedmetaanalysis AT okamotokeinosuke cholerarapiddiagnostictestsforthedetectionofvibriocholeraeo1anupdatedmetaanalysis AT miyoshishinichi cholerarapiddiagnostictestsforthedetectionofvibriocholeraeo1anupdatedmetaanalysis |