IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i14p8756-d865811.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diagnostic Accuracy of Various Immunochromatographic Tests for NS1 Antigen and IgM Antibodies Detection in Acute Dengue Virus Infection

Author

Listed:
  • Mughees Haider

    (Research, Sargodha Medical College, University of Sargodha, Sargodha 40100, Pakistan)

  • Saira Yousaf

    (Research, Sargodha Medical College, University of Sargodha, Sargodha 40100, Pakistan)

  • Asifa Zaib

    (Research, Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad Medical University, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan)

  • Azza Sarfraz

    (Pediatrics and Child Health, Aga Khan University, Karachi 74000, Pakistan)

  • Zouina Sarfraz

    (Research and Publications, Fatima Jinnah Medical University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan)

  • Ivan Cherrez-Ojeda

    (Allergy, Immunology and Pulmonology, Universidad de Especialidades Espíritu Santo, Samborondón 0901-952, Ecuador)

Abstract

Introduction: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) were evaluated, in this paper, for their utility as a reliable test, using resource-constrained studies. In most studies, NS1 antigen and immunoglobulin M (IgM)-based immunochromatographic tests (ICTs) were considered for acute phase detection. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of NS1, IgM, and NS1/IgM-based ICTs to detect acute dengue virus (DENV) infection in dengue-endemic regions. Methods: Studies were electronically identified using the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL Plus. Keywords including dengue, rapid diagnostic test, immunochromatography, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnosis were applied across databases. In total, 15 studies were included. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. All statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan, MedCalc, and SPSS software. Results: The studies revealed a total of 4135 individuals, originating largely from the Americas and Asia. The prevalence of DENV cases was 53.8%. Pooled sensitivities vs. specificities for NS1 (only), IgM (only) and combined NS1/IgM were 70.97% vs. 94.73%, 40.32% vs. 93.01%, and 78.62% vs. 88.47%, respectively. Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of DENV for NS1 ICTs was 43.95 (95% CI: 36.61–52.78), for IgM only ICTs was 8.99 (95% CI: 7.25–11.16), and for NS1/IgM ICTs was 28.22 (95% CI: 24.18–32.95). ELISA ICTs yielded a DOR of 21.36, 95% CI: 17.08–26.741. RT-PCR had a DOR of 40.43, 95% CI: 23.3–71.2. Heterogeneity tests for subgroup analysis by ICT manufacturers for NS1 ICTs revealed an χ 2 finding of 158.818 (df = 8), p < 0.001, whereas for IgM ICTs, the χ 2 finding was 21.698 (df = 5), p < 0.001. Conclusion: NS1-based ICTs had the highest diagnostic accuracy in acute phases of DENV infection. Certain factors influenced the pooled sensitivity, including ICT manufacturers, nature of the infection, reference method (RT-PCR), and serotypes. Prospective studies may examine the best strategy for incorporating ICTs for dengue diagnosis.

Suggested Citation

  • Mughees Haider & Saira Yousaf & Asifa Zaib & Azza Sarfraz & Zouina Sarfraz & Ivan Cherrez-Ojeda, 2022. "Diagnostic Accuracy of Various Immunochromatographic Tests for NS1 Antigen and IgM Antibodies Detection in Acute Dengue Virus Infection," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-27, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:14:p:8756-:d:865811
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8756/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/14/8756/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Veasna Duong & Sowath Ly & Patrich Lorn Try & Anne Tuiskunen & Sivuth Ong & Norith Chroeung & Ake Lundkvist & Isabelle Leparc-Goffart & Vincent Deubel & Sirenda Vong & Philippe Buchy, 2011. "Clinical and Virological Factors Influencing the Performance of a NS1 Antigen-Capture Assay and Potential Use as a Marker of Dengue Disease Severity," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(7), pages 1-10, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:14:p:8756-:d:865811. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.