-
European Spine Journal : Official... Nov 2016Low back pain (LBP) is the most disabling condition worldwide. Although LBP relates to different spinal pathologies, vertebral bone marrow lesions visualized as Modic... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Low back pain (LBP) is the most disabling condition worldwide. Although LBP relates to different spinal pathologies, vertebral bone marrow lesions visualized as Modic changes on MRI have a high specificity for discogenic LBP. This review summarizes the pathobiology of Modic changes and suggests a disease model.
METHODS
Non-systematic literature review.
RESULTS
Chemical and mechanical stimulation of nociceptors adjacent to damaged endplates are likely a source of pain. Modic changes are adjacent to a degenerated intervertebral disc and have three generally interconvertible types suggesting that the different Modic change types represent different stages of the same pathological process, which is characterized by inflammation, high bone turnover, and fibrosis. A disease model is suggested where disc/endplate damage and the persistence of an inflammatory stimulus (i.e., occult discitis or autoimmune response against disc material) create predisposing conditions. The risk to develop Modic changes likely depends on the inflammatory potential of the disc and the capacity of the bone marrow to respond to it. Bone marrow lesions in osteoarthritic knee joints share many characteristics with Modic changes adjacent to degenerated discs and suggest that damage-associated molecular patterns and marrow fat metabolism are important pathogenetic factors. There is no consensus on the ideal therapy. Non-surgical treatment approaches including intradiscal steroid injections, anti-TNF-α antibody, antibiotics, and bisphosphonates have some demonstrated efficacy in mostly non-replicated clinical studies in reducing Modic changes in the short term, but with unknown long-term benefits. New diagnostic tools and animal models are required to improve painful Modic change identification and classification, and to clarify the pathogenesis.
CONCLUSION
Modic changes are likely to be more than just a coincidental imaging finding in LBP patients and rather represent an underlying pathology that should be a target for therapy.
Topics: Bone Marrow; Humans; Intervertebral Disc; Low Back Pain; Lumbar Vertebrae; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Models, Biological
PubMed: 26914098
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4459-7 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Jun 2020We conducted a systematic review of relevant syphilis diagnostic literature to address the question, "What is the sensitivity and specificity of the treponemal tests...
We conducted a systematic review of relevant syphilis diagnostic literature to address the question, "What is the sensitivity and specificity of the treponemal tests currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the diagnosis of syphilis (by stage)?" There were 16 treponemal assays evaluated: 13 immunoassays and 3 manual assays (fluorescent treponemal antibody absorbed test [FTA-ABS], microhemagglutination assay for Treponema pallidum antibodies [MHA-TP], Treponema pallidum particle agglutination assay [TP-PA]). MHA-TP and FTA-ABS were less sensitive in primary and secondary syphilis than TP-PA; TP-PA is the most specific manual treponemal assay. There is insufficient evidence to recommend one particular treponemal immunoassay (eg, enzyme immunoassays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, microbead immunoassays) over another based on published performance data. For diagnosis of neurosyphilis, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) TP-PA has similar performance to CSF FTA-ABS in studies with patients with definitive or presumptive neurosyphilis. However, CSF treponemal testing has limitations in its sensitivity and specificity and should be interpreted within the context of the clinical scenario, additional CSF test results and syphilis prevalence.
Topics: Antibodies, Bacterial; Humans; Neurosyphilis; Sensitivity and Specificity; Syphilis; Syphilis Serodiagnosis; Treponema pallidum
PubMed: 32578866
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciaa349 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Jan 2022Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) is an opportunistic infection commonly affecting immunocompromised people. Diagnosis usually requires invasive techniques to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) is an opportunistic infection commonly affecting immunocompromised people. Diagnosis usually requires invasive techniques to obtain respiratory specimens. Minimally invasive detection tests have been proposed, but their operating characteristics are poorly described.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review and meta-analyse the performance of minimally invasive PCP detection tests to inform diagnostic algorithms.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library (inception to 15 October 2020).
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Studies of minimally invasive PCP detection tests were included if they contained a minimum of ten PCP cases.
PARTICIPANTS
Adults at risk of PCP.
TESTS
Non-invasive PCP detection tests.
REFERENCE STANDARD
Diagnosis using the combination of clinical and radiographical features with invasive sampling.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK BIAS
Using the QUADAS-2 tool.
METHODS
We used bivariate and, when necessary, univariate analysis models to estimate diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity.
RESULTS
Fifty-two studies were included; most studies (40) comprised exclusively human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) -infected individuals; nine were mixed (HIV and non-HIV), two were non-HIV and one study did not report HIV status. Sampling sites included induced sputum, nasopharyngeal aspirate, oral wash and blood. The four testing modalities evaluated were cytological staining, fluorescent antibody, PCR and lactate dehydrogenase. Induced sputum had the most data available; this modality was both highly sensitive at 99% (95% CI 51%-100%) and specific at 96% (95% CI 88%-99%). Induced sputum cytological staining had moderate sensitivity at 50% (95% CI 39%-61%) and high specificity at 100% (95% CI 100%-100%), as did fluorescent antibody testing with sensitivity 74% (95% CI 62%-87%) and specificity 100% (95% CI 91%-100%).
CONCLUSION
There are several promising minimally invasive PCP diagnostic tests available, some of which may reduce the need for invasive respiratory sampling. Understanding the operating characteristics of these tests can augment current diagnostic strategies and help establish a more confident clinical diagnosis of PCP. Further studies in non-HIV infected populations are needed.
Topics: Adult; HIV Infections; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Pneumocystis carinii; Pneumonia, Pneumocystis; Sensitivity and Specificity; Sputum
PubMed: 34464734
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.08.017 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases.
SEARCH METHODS
The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.
Topics: Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Antibodies, Viral; Immunoglobulin G; COVID-19 Vaccines; Pandemics; Seroepidemiologic Studies; Immunoglobulin M
PubMed: 36394900
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013652.pub2 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2021Bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) are antibodies with two binding sites directed at two different antigens or two different epitopes on the same antigen. The clinical...
Bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) are antibodies with two binding sites directed at two different antigens or two different epitopes on the same antigen. The clinical therapeutic effects of BsAbs are superior to those of monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs), with broad applications for tumor immunotherapy as well as for the treatment of other diseases. Recently, with progress in antibody or protein engineering and recombinant DNA technology, various platforms for generating different types of BsAbs based on novel strategies, for various uses, have been established. More than 30 mature commercial technology platforms have been used to create and develop BsAbs based on the heterologous recombination of heavy chains and matching of light chains. The detailed mechanisms of clinical/therapeutic action have been demonstrated with these different types of BsAbs. Three kinds of BsAbs have received market approval, and more than 110 types of BsAbs are at various stages of clinical trials. In this paper, we elaborate on the classic platforms, mechanisms, and applications of BsAbs. We hope that this review can stimulate new ideas for the development of BsAbs and improve current clinical strategies.
Topics: Animals; Antibodies, Bispecific; Antibody Specificity; Binding Sites, Antibody; Biotechnology; Drug Design; Epitopes; Humans; Immunotherapy; Protein Engineering; Recombinant Proteins; Translational Research, Biomedical
PubMed: 34025638
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.626616 -
Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology 2022Antibody-based therapeutics have been shown to be promising for the treatment of colorectal cancer patients. However, the size and long-circulating half-lives of...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Antibody-based therapeutics have been shown to be promising for the treatment of colorectal cancer patients. However, the size and long-circulating half-lives of antibodies can limit their reproducible manufacture in clinical studies. Consequently, in novel therapeutic approaches, conventional antibodies are minimized and engineered to produce fragments like Fab, scFv, nanobody, bifunctional antibody, bispecific antibody, minibody, and diabody to preserve their high affinity and specificity to target pharmaceutical nanoparticle conjugates. This systematic review for the first time aimed to elucidate the role of various antibody fragments in colorectal cancer treatment.
METHODS
A systematic literature search in the web of sciences, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ProQuest was conducted. Reference lists of the articles were reviewed to identify the relevant papers. The full-text search included articles published in English during 19902021.
RESULTS
Most of the 53 included studies were conducted in vitro and in most conducted studies singlechain antibodies were among the most used antibody fragments. Most antibodies targeted CEA in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Moreover, a large number of studies observed apoptosis induction and tumor growth inhibition. In addition, few studies implicated the role of the innate immune system as an indirect mechanism of tumor growth by enhancing NK-cell killing.
CONCLUSION
Antibody-based therapy was demonstrated to be of great promise in the treatment of colorectal cancer rather than common treatments such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgical operations. This type of specified cancer treatment can also induce the activation of the innate and specific immune systems to eradicate tumor cells.
Topics: Antibodies, Bispecific; Antigens; Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; Immunoglobulin Fragments; Killer Cells, Natural; Nanoparticles
PubMed: 34375187
DOI: 10.2174/1389201022666210810104226 -
Autoimmunity Reviews Jan 2021The testing of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) takes an important place in the diagnostic workup to ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV). Nowadays, it is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The testing of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) takes an important place in the diagnostic workup to ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV). Nowadays, it is recommended to screen for the presence of PR3 and MPO specific antibodies first using immunoassay, without the need for ANCA measurement by indirect immunofluorescence (IIF). A literature search was performed to assess the diagnostic test value of ANCA IIF and PR3- and MPO-antibody immunoassay to diagnose AAV. This meta-analysis shows that the c-ANCA testing by IIF has a pooled sensitivity of 75.2% and a pooled specificity of 98.4%. For PR3-antibody immunoassay, the pooled sensitivity depended on the immunoassay method used, and ranged from 79.8% to 86.6%, whereas the pooled specificity ranged from 96.8% to 98.3%. For both p-ANCA IIF and MPO-antibody immunoassay (all methods) sensitivity varied considerably showing pooled values of respectively 46.3% and 58.1%, whereas respective pooled specificity was 91.4% and 95.6%. These findings support the 2017 international consensus that primary anti-PR3 and anti-MPO screening by immunoassay, based on superior immunoassay sensitivity without the need for IIF ANCA testing, improves the diagnostic workup of AAV.
Topics: Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis; Antibodies, Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Indirect; Humans; Immunoassay; Myeloblastin; Peroxidase
PubMed: 33197574
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102716 -
Thyroid : Official Journal of the... Oct 2023The objective of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) in detecting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The Diagnostic Value of F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Differentiated Thyroid Cancer Patients with Elevated Thyroglobulin/Thyroglobulin Antibody Levels and Negative Iodine Scintigraphy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
The objective of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) in detecting recurrence in patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) who have negative whole-body scans (WBSs) but elevated serum thyroglobulin (Tg) or thyroglobulin antibody (TgAb) levels. This systematic review/meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Diagnostic Test Accuracy criteria (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration number: CRD42022340924). A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases identified articles reporting the diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET/CT for the detection of recurrence in patients with DTC with negative WBS and elevated serum Tg or TgAb levels published between January 2012 and June 2023. Meta-analyses were performed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET/CT on the total target population as well as on subgroups stratified by serum Tg or TgAb, and thyrotropin (TSH) stimulation status at the time of FDG PET/CT. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework was applied to evaluate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations to facilitate translation of the meta-analysis results into practical recommendations for clinical guidelines. A total of 24 studies involving 1988 patients were included for analysis. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity values were 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83-0.92; = 75%) and 0.84 (CI = 0.80-0.89; = 44%), respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences in the diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET/CT in patients stratified by serum Tg or TgAb levels, and TSH stimulation status at the time of PET/CT. Treatment plans were changed following FDG PET/CT imaging in 40% (CI = 34-47%; = 39%) of cases. The quality level of evidence for using FDG PET/CT was moderate in both sensitivity and specificity according to the GRADE system. There is moderate quality evidence demonstrating the high diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET/CT in detecting recurrence in patients with DTC with negative WBS and elevated serum Tg or TgAb levels. This evidence corroborates the current guidelines' endorsement of FDG PET/CT as a diagnostic tool in such patients.
Topics: Humans; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Thyroglobulin; Fluorodeoxyglucose F18; Iodine; Positron-Emission Tomography; Iodine Radioisotopes; Thyroid Neoplasms; Adenocarcinoma; Thyrotropin
PubMed: 37597200
DOI: 10.1089/thy.2023.0264 -
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 2016The main purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the diagnostic value of anti-RA33 antibody for rheumatoid arthritis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The main purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the diagnostic value of anti-RA33 antibody for rheumatoid arthritis.
METHODS
In order to obtain eligible studies, a systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, Web of science, EBSCO, CNKI and CBM from January 2000 to September 2015. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) was employed to assess the quality of the relevant studies. Meta-disc 1.4 and Stata 11.0 were adopted in this meta-analysis.
RESULTS
After rigorous review, fifty studies were included in this study, which are all reliable to summarise the diagnostic value in this meta-analysis. The result of the analysis shows the pooled sensitivity is 0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.31-0.34) and the specificity is 0.90 (95% CI: 0.89-0.90), for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. Besides, the area under the summary ROC curve (AUC) is 0.6863.
CONCLUSIONS
The current evidence suggests that anti-RA33 antibody has high diagnostic specificity value for rheumatoid arthritis, which may be useful for the disease diagnostic application. To verify this conclusion, more prospective research on the diagnostic value of anti-RA33 antibody for rheumatoid arthritis are needed in the future.
Topics: Antibodies, Antinuclear; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Humans; Predictive Value of Tests; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 27050563
DOI: No ID Found -
Viruses Nov 2023Background and Aims Coinfection of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) with hepatitis B virus (HBV) causes the most severe form of viral hepatitis, and the global prevalence of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background and Aims Coinfection of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) with hepatitis B virus (HBV) causes the most severe form of viral hepatitis, and the global prevalence of HDV infection is underestimated. Although serological testing of anti-HDV antibodies is widely used in the diagnosis of HDV, its diagnostic efficacy remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of HDV serological tests, the results of which may assist in the diagnosis of HDV. Methods Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. The PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched from the beginning to 31 May 2023. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. STATA SE was used for the meta-analysis of the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio. Results Among a total of 1376 initially identified studies, only 12 articles met the final inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 1.00 (95% CI: 0.00-1.00) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.50-0.78) for HDV total antibodies, 0.96 (95% CI: 0.83-0.99) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.82-1.00) for anti-HDV IgM and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.86-0.98) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.67-1.00) for anti-HDV IgG. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for HDV serological tests were 0.99 (95% CI: 0.96-1.00) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.79-0.96). Conclusions This meta-analysis suggests that serological tests have high diagnostic performance in detecting antibodies against HDV, especially in HDV IgM and IgG. However, this conclusion is based on studies of a limited number and quality, and the development of new diagnostic tools with higher precision and reliability is still necessary.
Topics: Humans; Hepatitis B; Hepatitis Delta Virus; Reproducibility of Results; Hepatitis Antibodies; Immunoglobulin M; Immunoglobulin G
PubMed: 38140586
DOI: 10.3390/v15122345