30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Accuracy of rapid point-of-care serological tests for leprosy diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          BACKGROUND

          Leprosy is a chronic infectious disease, still endemic in many countries that may lead to neurological, ophthalmic, and motor sequelae if not treated early. Access to timely diagnosis and multidrug therapy (MDT) remains a crucial element in the World Health Organization’s strategy to eliminate the disease as a public health problem.

          OBJECTIVES

          This systematic review aims to evaluate the accuracy of rapid point-of-care (POC) tests for diagnosis of leprosy.

          METHODS

          Searches were carried out in electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CRD, Cochrane Library and LILACS) in April 2021 for patients with suspicion or confirmatory diagnostic of leprosy, classified in multibacillary (MB) or paucibacillary (PB) cases, performing rapid POC serological tests compared to clinical evaluation, smear microscopy and immunohistochemistry analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2). A meta-analysis was undertaken to generate pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters, presenting sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) values. The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO, CRD # 42014009658.

          FINDINGS

          From 893 potentially relevant references, 12 articles were included reporting 16 diagnostic tests accuracy studies with 5395 individuals enrolled. Meta-analysis of NDO-LID and PGL-I tests data in MB patients showed sensitivity and specificity [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 0.83 (0.71-0.91), 0.91 (0.72-0.97); and 0.92 (0.86-0.96), 0.93 (0.78-0.98); respectively, with high heterogeneity among the studies.

          MAIN CONCLUSIONS

          Our results can inform policymakers regarding the possibility of implementing accurate, rapid POC tests for leprosy in public health services, especially within primary health care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references58

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap) is a novel workflow methodology and software solution designed for rapid development and deployment of electronic data capture tools to support clinical and translational research. We present: (1) a brief description of the REDCap metadata-driven software toolset; (2) detail concerning the capture and use of study-related metadata from scientific research teams; (3) measures of impact for REDCap; (4) details concerning a consortium network of domestic and international institutions collaborating on the project; and (5) strengths and limitations of the REDCap system. REDCap is currently supporting 286 translational research projects in a growing collaborative network including 27 active partner institutions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

            Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

              In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz
                Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz
                mioc
                Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz
                Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Ministério da Saúde
                0074-0276
                1678-8060
                08 April 2022
                2022
                : 117
                : e220317
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Fundação Oswaldo Cruz-Fiocruz, Centro de Desenvolvimento Tecnológico em Saúde, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
                [2 ]Fundação Oswaldo Cruz-Fiocruz, Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sérgio Arouca, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
                [3 ]Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
                [4 ]Fundação Oswaldo Cruz-Fiocruz, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
                [5 ]Fundação Oswaldo Cruz-Fiocruz, Brasília, DF, Brasil
                [6 ]Fundação Oswaldo Cruz-Fiocruz, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Laboratório de Hanseníase, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
                [7 ]Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, GO, Brasil
                [8 ]Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Instituto de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil
                [9 ]Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brasil
                Author notes

                CPRC, CMT and MRFO conceived and designed the study protocol; CPRC, RC, PEAB, DP, ROP, CMT and MRFO contributed to data collection, data analysis and interpretation, CPRC and RC drafted the manuscript; CPRC, RC, PEAB, ROP, CMT and MRFO contributed to critical revision of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2759-0544
                Article
                01101
                10.1590/0074-02760220317
                9000963
                35416839
                f5447629-2d94-42cd-8907-3f4b10dc6f04

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License

                History
                : 23 September 2021
                : 04 February 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 3, References: 54
                Categories
                Research Article

                accuracy,diagnosis,leprosy, mycobacterium infections,point-of-care,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content318

                Cited by3

                Most referenced authors3,933