scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of detection and quantification of HBV-DNA and HCV-RNA using dried blood spot (DBS) samples – a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Berit Lange ◽  
Teri Roberts ◽  
Jennifer Cohn ◽  
Jamie Greenman ◽  
Johannes Camp ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul G. Carty ◽  
Michael McCarthy ◽  
Sinéad M. O’Neill ◽  
Cillian F. De Gascun ◽  
Patricia Harrington ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonia Vázquez-Morón ◽  
Beatriz Ardizone Jiménez ◽  
María A. Jiménez-Sousa ◽  
José M. Bellón ◽  
Pablo Ryan ◽  
...  

2022 ◽  
Vol 2022 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Geane Lopes Flores ◽  
Jurema Corrêa Mota ◽  
Larissa Tropiano da Silva Andrade ◽  
Renata Serrano Lopes ◽  
Francisco Inácio Bastos ◽  
...  

Background and Aims. Active hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is based on the detection of HCV RNA that it is effective but presents high cost and the need to hire trained personnel. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed at evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of HCV Ag testing to identify HCV cases and to monitor antiviral treatment including DAA treatment. Methods. The studies were identified through a search in PubMed, Lilacs, and Scopus from 1990 through March 31, 2020. Cohort, cross-sectional, and randomized controlled trials were included. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed quality using an adapted Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Our primary outcome was to determine the accuracy of HCV Ag detection for the diagnosis, which we estimated using random-effects meta-analysis. Results. Of 3,062 articles identified, 54 met our eligibility criteria. The studies described cohorts from 20 countries, including 14,286 individuals with chronic HCV individuals. Studies for ECLIA technology demonstrated highest quality compared to studies that used ELISA. The pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) for HCV Ag detection of active HCV infection were 98.82% ( 95 % CI = 98.04 %; 99.30%) and 98.95% ( 95 % CI = 97.84 %; 99.49%), respectively. High concordance was found between HCV Ag testing and HCV RNA detection 89.7% and 95% to evaluate antiviral treatment. Conclusions. According to our findings, HCV Ag testing could be useful to identify HCV active cases in low-resource areas. For antiviral treatment, HCV Ag testing will be useful at the end of treatment.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e038449
Author(s):  
Lisa Helen Telford ◽  
Leila Hussein Abdullahi ◽  
Eleanor Atieno Ochodo ◽  
Liesl Joanna Zuhlke ◽  
Mark Emmanuel Engel

ObjectiveTo summarise the accuracy of handheld echocardiography (HAND) which, if shown to be sufficiently similar to that of standard echocardiography (STAND), could usher in a new age of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) screening in endemic areas.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus, EBSCOHost and ISI Web of Science were initially searched on 27 September 2017 and again on 3 March 2020 for studies published from 2012 onwards.Eligibility criteriaStudies assessing the accuracy of HAND compared with STAND when performed by an experienced cardiologist in conjunction with the 2012 World Heart Federation criteria among populations of children and adolescents living in endemic areas were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies against review-specific Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 criteria. A meta-analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model was conducted to produce summary results of sensitivity and specificity. Forest plots and scatter plots in receiver operating characteristic space in combination with subgroup analyses were used to investigate heterogeneity. Publication bias was not investigated.ResultsSix studies (N=4208) were included in the analysis. For any RHD detection, the pooled results from six studies were as follows: sensitivity: 81.56% (95% CI 76.52% to 86.61%) and specificity: 89.75% (84.48% to 95.01%). Meta-analytical results from five of the six included studies were as follows: sensitivity: 91.06% (80.46% to 100%) and specificity: 91.96% (85.57% to 98.36%) for the detection of definite RHD only and sensitivity: 62.01% (31.80% to 92.22%) and specificity: 82.33% (65.15% to 99.52%) for the detection of borderline RHD only.ConclusionsHAND displayed good accuracy for detecting definite RHD only and modest accuracy for detecting any RHD but demonstrated poor accuracy for the detection of borderline RHD alone. Findings from this review provide some evidence for the potential of HAND to increase access to echocardiographic screening for RHD in resource-limited and remote settings; however, further research into feasibility and cost-effectiveness of wide-scale screening is still needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016051261.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document