tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Influenza Other Respi Viruses. 2011 Aug 31. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00284.x. [Epub ahead of print]
Performance of rapid influenza H1N1 diagnostic tests: a meta-analysis.
Chu H, Lofgren ET, Halloran ME, Kuan PF, Hudgens M, Cole SR.
Source
Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, The University of Minnesota at Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Department of Epidemiology, The Univerity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Department of Biostatistics, The Univerity of Washington at Seattle, Seattle, WA, USA. Center for Statistical and Quantitative Infectious Disease, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. Department of Biostatistics, The Univerity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Univerity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
Please cite this paper as: Chu et al. (2011) Performance of rapid influenza H1N1 diagnostic tests: a meta-analysis. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00284.x. Background Following the outbreaks of 2009 pandemic H1N1 infection, rapid influenza diagnostic tests have been used to detect H1N1 infection. However, no meta-analysis has been undertaken to assess the diagnostic accuracy when this manuscript was drafted. Methods The literature was systematically searched to identify studies that reported the performance of rapid tests. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the overall performance. Results Seventeen studies were selected with 1879 cases and 3477 non-cases. The overall sensitivity and specificity estimates of the rapid tests were 0?51 (95%CI: 0?41, 0?60) and 0?98 (95%CI: 0?94, 0?99). Studies reported heterogeneous sensitivity estimates, ranging from 0?11 to 0?88. If the prevalence was 30%, the overall positive and negative predictive values were 0?94 (95%CI: 0?85, 0?98) and 0?82 (95%CI: 0?79, 0?85). The overall specificities from different manufacturers were comparable, while there were some differences for the overall sensitivity estimates. BinaxNOW had a lower overall sensitivity of 0?39 (95%CI: 0?24, 0?57) compared with all the others (P-value <0?001), whereas QuickVue had a higher overall sensitivity of 0?57 (95%CI: 0?50, 0?63) compared with all the others (P-value = 0?005). Conclusions Rapid tests have high specificity but low sensitivity and thus limited usefulness.
? 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
PMID:
21883964
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21883964
Performance of rapid influenza H1N1 diagnostic tests: a meta-analysis.
Chu H, Lofgren ET, Halloran ME, Kuan PF, Hudgens M, Cole SR.
Source
Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, The University of Minnesota at Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Department of Epidemiology, The Univerity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Department of Biostatistics, The Univerity of Washington at Seattle, Seattle, WA, USA. Center for Statistical and Quantitative Infectious Disease, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. Department of Biostatistics, The Univerity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Univerity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
Please cite this paper as: Chu et al. (2011) Performance of rapid influenza H1N1 diagnostic tests: a meta-analysis. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00284.x. Background Following the outbreaks of 2009 pandemic H1N1 infection, rapid influenza diagnostic tests have been used to detect H1N1 infection. However, no meta-analysis has been undertaken to assess the diagnostic accuracy when this manuscript was drafted. Methods The literature was systematically searched to identify studies that reported the performance of rapid tests. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the overall performance. Results Seventeen studies were selected with 1879 cases and 3477 non-cases. The overall sensitivity and specificity estimates of the rapid tests were 0?51 (95%CI: 0?41, 0?60) and 0?98 (95%CI: 0?94, 0?99). Studies reported heterogeneous sensitivity estimates, ranging from 0?11 to 0?88. If the prevalence was 30%, the overall positive and negative predictive values were 0?94 (95%CI: 0?85, 0?98) and 0?82 (95%CI: 0?79, 0?85). The overall specificities from different manufacturers were comparable, while there were some differences for the overall sensitivity estimates. BinaxNOW had a lower overall sensitivity of 0?39 (95%CI: 0?24, 0?57) compared with all the others (P-value <0?001), whereas QuickVue had a higher overall sensitivity of 0?57 (95%CI: 0?50, 0?63) compared with all the others (P-value = 0?005). Conclusions Rapid tests have high specificity but low sensitivity and thus limited usefulness.
? 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
PMID:
21883964
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21883964