IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0004888.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tourniquet Test for Dengue Diagnosis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio Jose Grande
  • Hamish Reid
  • Emma Thomas
  • Charlie Foster
  • Thomas C Darton

Abstract

Background: Dengue fever is a ubiquitous arboviral infection in tropical and sub-tropical regions, whose incidence has increased over recent decades. In the absence of a rapid point of care test, the clinical diagnosis of dengue is complex. The World Health Organisation has outlined diagnostic criteria for making the diagnosis of dengue infection, which includes the use of the tourniquet test (TT). Purpose: To assess the quality of the evidence supporting the use of the TT and perform a diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis comparing the TT to antibody response measured by ELISA. Data Sources: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the following databases to April, 2016: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, BIOSIS, Web of Science, SCOPUS. Study Selection: Studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of the tourniquet test with ELISA for the diagnosis of dengue were included. Data Extraction: Two independent authors extracted data using a standardized form. Data Synthesis: A total of 16 studies with 28,739 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity for dengue diagnosis by TT was 58% (95% Confidence Interval (CI), 43%-71%) and the specificity was 71% (95% CI, 60%-80%). In the subgroup analysis sensitivity for non-severe dengue diagnosis was 55% (95% CI, 52%-59%) and the specificity was 63% (95% CI, 60%-66%), whilst sensitivity for dengue hemorrhagic fever diagnosis was 62% (95% CI, 53%-71%) and the specificity was 60% (95% CI, 48%-70%). Receiver-operator characteristics demonstrated a test accuracy (AUC) of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.66–0.74). Conclusion: The tourniquet test is widely used in resource poor settings despite currently available evidence demonstrating only a marginal benefit in making a diagnosis of dengue infection alone. Registration: The protocol for this systematic review was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015020323. Author Summary: Dengue is an infectious disease transmitted by mosquitoes in the Tropics. There are 2.5 billion people around the world at risk. Dengue presents as an acute febrile illness with symptoms including headache, bone or joint and muscular pains and rash. The objective of this study is to perform a diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis comparing the use of the Tourniquet Test (TT) to a laboratory assay standard (ELISA) for making a diagnosis of dengue infection. A comprehensive literature search (to April, 2016) was conducted to map and assess the quality of the available evidence, using the following databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, BIOSIS, Web of Science, SCOPUS. We included 16 studies with 28,739 participants in the meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity for dengue diagnosis by TT was 58% (95% Confidence Interval (CI), 43%-71%) and the specificity was 71% (95% CI, 60%-80%). In the pooled subgroup analysis sensitivity for dengue fever diagnosis was 55% (95% CI, 52%-59%) and the specificity was 63% (95% CI, 60%-66%). The tourniquet test is widely used in resource poor settings despite currently available evidence demonstrating only a marginal benefit in making a diagnosis of dengue infection alone.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio Jose Grande & Hamish Reid & Emma Thomas & Charlie Foster & Thomas C Darton, 2016. "Tourniquet Test for Dengue Diagnosis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-23, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0004888
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004888
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0004888
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0004888&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0004888?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pntd00:0004888. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    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.