scholarly journals Assessment of diagnostic accuracy of rapid and point-of -care tests for syphilis screening

2015 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. S67
Author(s):  
Min Chien Huang
2018 ◽  
Vol 146 (6) ◽  
pp. 747-756
Author(s):  
J.M. Hughes ◽  
C. Penney ◽  
S. Boyd ◽  
P. Daley

AbstractCommercial point-of-care (POC) diagnostic tests for Group A Streptococcus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and influenza virus have large potential diagnostic and financial impact. Many published reports on test performance, often funded by diagnostics companies, are prone to bias. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD 2015) are a protocol to encourage accurate, transparent reporting. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool evaluates risk of bias and transportability of results. We used these tools to evaluate diagnostic test accuracy studies of POC studies for three respiratory pathogens. For the 96 studies analysed, compliance was <25% for 14/34 STARD 2015 standards, and 3/7 QUADAS-2 domains showed a high risk of bias. All reports lacked reporting of at least one criterion. These biases should be considered in the interpretation of study results.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pakpoom Subsoontorn ◽  
Manupat Lohitnavy ◽  
Chuenjid Kongkaew

AbstractMany recent studies reported coronavirus point-of-care tests (POCTs) based on isothermal amplification. However, the performances of these tests have not been systematically evaluated. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy was used as a guideline for conducting this systematic review. We searched peer-reviewed and preprint articles in PubMed, BioRxiv and MedRxiv up to 28 September 2020 to identify studies that provide data to calculate sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was applied for assessing quality of included studies and Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) was followed for reporting. We included 81 studies from 65 research articles on POCTs of SARS, MERS and COVID-19. Most studies had high risk of patient selection and index test bias but low risk in other domains. Diagnostic specificities were high (> 0.95) for included studies while sensitivities varied depending on type of assays and sample used. Most studies (n = 51) used reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) to diagnose coronaviruses. RT-LAMP of RNA purified from COVID-19 patient samples had pooled sensitivity at 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90–0.96). RT-LAMP of crude samples had substantially lower sensitivity at 0.78 (95% CI: 0.65–0.87). Abbott ID Now performance was similar to RT-LAMP of crude samples. Diagnostic performances by CRISPR and RT-LAMP on purified RNA were similar. Other diagnostic platforms including RT- recombinase assisted amplification (RT-RAA) and SAMBA-II also offered high sensitivity (> 0.95). Future studies should focus on the use of un-bias patient cohorts, double-blinded index test and detection assays that do not require RNA extraction.


2013 ◽  
Vol 89 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A260.3-A260
Author(s):  
L Yang ◽  
J Tucker ◽  
F Liu ◽  
X Ren ◽  
H Xuan ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 130 ◽  
pp. 18-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elise H. Tatone ◽  
Jessica L. Gordon ◽  
Jessie Hubbs ◽  
Stephen J. LeBlanc ◽  
Trevor J. DeVries ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Edith Angel-Müller ◽  
Carlos Fernando Grillo-Ardila ◽  
Jairo Amaya-Guio ◽  
Nicolas Torres-Montañez

2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (7) ◽  
pp. 535-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prashant Singh ◽  
Ananya Arora ◽  
Tor A. Strand ◽  
Daniel A. Leffler ◽  
Markku Mäki ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 160 (8) ◽  
pp. 550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm P. McTaggart ◽  
Ronald G. Newall ◽  
Jennifer A. Hirst ◽  
Clare R. Bankhead ◽  
Edmund J. Lamb ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e72149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li-Gang Yang ◽  
Joseph D. Tucker ◽  
Feng-Ying Liu ◽  
Xu-Qi Ren ◽  
Xuan Hong ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 56 (11) ◽  
pp. 1758-1766 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geert-Jan Geersing ◽  
Diane B Toll ◽  
Kristel JM Janssen ◽  
Ruud Oudega ◽  
Marloes JC Blikman ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Point-of-care D-dimer tests have recently been introduced to enable rapid exclusion of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) without the need to refer a patient for conventional laboratory-based D-dimer testing. Before implementation in practice, however, the diagnostic accuracy of each test should be validated. METHODS We analyzed data of 577 prospectively identified consecutive primary care patients suspected to have DVT, who underwent 5 point-of-care D-dimer tests—4 quantitative (Vidas®, Pathfast™, Cardiac®, and Triage®) and 1 qualitative (Clearview Simplify®)—and ultrasonography as the reference method. We evaluated the tests for the accuracy of their measurements and submitted a questionnaire to 20 users to assess the user-friendliness of each test. RESULTS All D-dimer tests showed negative predictive values higher than 98%. Sensitivity was high for all point-of-care tests, with a range of 0.91 (Clearview Simplify) to 0.99 (Vidas). Specificity varied between 0.39 (Pathfast) and 0.64 (Clearview Simplify). The quantitative point-of-care tests showed similar and high discriminative power for DVT, according to calculated areas under the ROC curves (range 0.88–0.89). The quantitative Vidas and Pathfast devices showed limited user-friendliness for primary care, owing to a laborious calibration process and long analyzer warm-up time compared to the Cardiac and Triage. For the qualitative Clearview Simplify assay, no analyzer or calibration was needed, but interpretation of a test result was sometimes difficult because of poor color contrast. CONCLUSIONS Point-of-care D-dimer assays show good and similar diagnostic accuracy. The quantitative Cardiac and Triage and the qualitative Clearview Simplify D-dimer seem most user-friendly for excluding DVT in the doctor's office.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document