Improved rapid diagnostic tests to detect syphilis and yaws: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
DIAGNOSIS
SYPHILIS
YAWS
Journal
Sexually transmitted infections
ISSN: 1472-3263
Titre abrégé: Sex Transm Infect
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9805554
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2022
12 2022
Historique:
received:
09
06
2022
accepted:
16
08
2022
pubmed:
1
10
2022
medline:
22
11
2022
entrez:
30
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Current rapid tests for syphilis and yaws can detect treponemal and non-treponemal antibodies. We aimed to critically appraise the literature for rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) which can better distinguish an active infection of syphilis or yaws. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching five databases between January 2010 and October 2021 (with an update in July 2022). A generalised linear mixed model was used to conduct a bivariate meta-analysis for the pooled sensitivity and specificity. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I We included 17 studies for meta-analyses. For syphilis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the treponemal component were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.86 to 0.97) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96 to 0.99), respectively. For the non-treponemal component, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.95) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.99), respectively. For yaws, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the treponemal component were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.66 to 0.95) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94 to 0.99), respectively. For the non-treponemal component, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.55 to 0.93) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98), respectively. RDTs that can differentiate between active and previously treated infections could optimise management by providing same-day treatment and reducing unnecessary treatment. CRD42021279587.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Current rapid tests for syphilis and yaws can detect treponemal and non-treponemal antibodies. We aimed to critically appraise the literature for rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) which can better distinguish an active infection of syphilis or yaws.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching five databases between January 2010 and October 2021 (with an update in July 2022). A generalised linear mixed model was used to conduct a bivariate meta-analysis for the pooled sensitivity and specificity. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I
RESULTS
We included 17 studies for meta-analyses. For syphilis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the treponemal component were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.86 to 0.97) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96 to 0.99), respectively. For the non-treponemal component, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.95) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.99), respectively. For yaws, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the treponemal component were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.66 to 0.95) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94 to 0.99), respectively. For the non-treponemal component, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.55 to 0.93) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
RDTs that can differentiate between active and previously treated infections could optimise management by providing same-day treatment and reducing unnecessary treatment.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021279587.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36180209
pii: sextrans-2022-055546
doi: 10.1136/sextrans-2022-055546
pmc: PMC9685714
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
608-616Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Sex Transm Infect. 2017 Dec;93(S4):S51-S58
pubmed: 29223963
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 May 23;14:70
pubmed: 24884381
JAMA. 2018 Jan 23;319(4):388-396
pubmed: 29362800
Pathology. 2015 Dec;47(7):718-20
pubmed: 26517628
BMJ Open. 2015 Sep 18;5(9):e008552
pubmed: 26384725
Sci Transl Med. 2015 Feb 4;7(273):273re1
pubmed: 25653222
EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Jun 27;24:100440
pubmed: 32637904
Sex Transm Infect. 2019 Sep;95(6):402-404
pubmed: 30580325
J Clin Microbiol. 2010 Dec;48(12):4615-9
pubmed: 20881177
Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Jul 15;61(2):184-91
pubmed: 25810288
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jun 24;71(Suppl 1):S21-S42
pubmed: 32578862
Sex Transm Dis. 2014 Aug;41(8):467-9
pubmed: 25013972
Bull World Health Organ. 2013 Mar 1;91(3):217-26
pubmed: 23476094
PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e54695
pubmed: 23468842
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014 Sep 11;8(9):e3156
pubmed: 25211018
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
BMC Infect Dis. 2012 Dec 17;12:353
pubmed: 23241398
Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Dec;55(12):1615-22
pubmed: 22955437
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Sep 1;63(5):627-633
pubmed: 27217216
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Mar;56(5):659-65
pubmed: 23132172
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jun;122:129-141
pubmed: 32060007
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jul 04;19(13):
pubmed: 35805831
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 06;9(11):e112190
pubmed: 25375138
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Jul;2(7):e415-21
pubmed: 25103395
Sex Transm Infect. 2010 Dec;86(7):532-6
pubmed: 20656720
J Appl Lab Med. 2017 Jan 1;1(4):346-356
pubmed: 33636805
Sex Transm Dis. 2011 Nov;38(11):997-1003
pubmed: 21992974
Int J STD AIDS. 2013 Dec;24(12):944-50
pubmed: 23999937
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Aug;9(8):e1110-e1118
pubmed: 34246332