...
首页> 外文期刊>The Lancet infectious diseases >Head-to-head comparison of accuracy of a rapid point-of-care HIV test with oral versus whole-blood specimens: A systematic review and meta-analysis
【24h】

Head-to-head comparison of accuracy of a rapid point-of-care HIV test with oral versus whole-blood specimens: A systematic review and meta-analysis

机译:头对头快速艾滋病毒快速检测点与口服和全血标本的准确性的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Background: The focus on prevention strategies aimed at curbing the HIV epidemic is growing, and therefore screening for HIV has again taken centre stage. Our aim was to establish whether a convenient, non-invasive, HIV test that uses oral fluid was accurate by comparison with the same test with blood-based specimens. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of a rapid HIV-antibody-based point-of-care test (Oraquick advance rapid HIV-1/2, OraSure Technologies Inc, PA, USA) when used with oral versus blood-based specimens in adults. We searched five databases of published work and databases of five key HIV conferences. Studies we deemed eligible were those focused on adults at risk of HIV; we excluded studies in children, in co-infected populations, with self-reported inferior reference standards, and with incomplete reporting of key data items. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of testing with oral and blood-based specimens with bivariate regression analysis. We computed positive predictive values (PPVs) in high-prevalence and low-prevalence settings with Bayesian methods. Findings: In a direct head-to-head comparison of studies, we identified a pooled sensitivity about 2% lower in oral (98·03%, 95% CI 95·85-99·08) than in blood-based specimens (99·68%, 97·31-99·96), but similar specificity (oral 99·74%, 99·47-99·88; blood 99·91%, 99·84-99·95). Negative likelihood ratios were small and similar (oral 0·019, 0.009-0·040; blood 0·003, 0·001-0·034), but positive likelihood ratios differed (oral 383·37, 183·87-799·31; blood 1105·16, 633·14-2004·37). Although in high-prevalence settings PPVs were similar (oral 98·65%, 95% credible interval 85·71-99·94; blood 98·50, 93·10-99·79), in low-prevalence settings PPVs were lower for oral (88·55%, 77·31-95·87) than blood (97·65%, 95·48-99·09) specimens. Interpretation: Although Oraquick had a high PPV in high-prevelence settings in oral specimens, the slightly lower sensitivity and PPV in low-prevalence settings in oral specimens should be carefully reviewed when planning worldwide expanded initiatives with this popular test. Funding: Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR KRS 102067).
机译:背景:对旨在遏制艾滋病毒流行的预防策略的关注正在增长,因此对艾滋病毒的筛查再次成为中心焦点。我们的目的是通过与以血液为基础的样本进行的相同测试相比,来确定使用口服液的便捷,非侵入性的HIV测试是否准确。方法:我们进行了系统的综述和荟萃分析,比较了使用时基于HIV抗体的快速即时护理测试(Oraquick Advance快速HIV-1 / 2,OraSure Technologies Inc,美国宾夕法尼亚州)的诊断准确性。成人的口腔样本与血液样本比较。我们搜索了五个已发表工作的数据库和五个主要艾滋病会议的数据库。我们认为合格的研究是针对有艾滋病毒感染风险的成年人的;我们排除了儿童,共感染人群,自我报告的劣等参考标准以及关键数据项报告不完整的研究。我们通过双变量回归分析评估了口腔和血液样本的诊断诊断准确性。我们使用贝叶斯方法在高流行和低流行设置中计算了正预测值(PPV)。研究结果:在直接的头对头比较研究中,我们发现,与血液样本相比,口服(98·03%,95%CI 95·85-99·08)的综合敏感性降低了约2% ·68%,97·31-99·96),但特异性相似(口服99·74%,99·47-99·88;血液99·91%,99·84-99·95)。负似然比很小且相似(口腔0·019,0.009-0·040;血液0·003,0·001-0·034),但是正似然比有所不同(口腔383·37、183·87-799· 31;血液1105·16、633·14-2004·37)。尽管在高流行情况下PPV相似(口服98·65%,95%可信区间85·71-99·94;血液98·50、93·10-99·79),在低流行背景下PPV却较低口腔样本(88·55%,77·31-95·87)比血液样本(97·65%,95·48-99·09)高。解释:尽管Oraquick在口腔标本的高精密度环境中具有较高的PPV,但在通过这项流行的测试制定全球扩展计划时,应仔细评估口腔标本在低流行度环境中的较低灵敏度和PPV。资金来源:加拿大卫生研究院(CIHR KRS 102067)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号