Abstract
The present systematic review and meta-analysis about the accuracy of diagnostic tests aim to describe the findings of literature over the last thirty years for the diagnosis of Chagas disease (CD). This work aimed to determine the accuracy of diagnostic techniques for CD in the disease’s acute and chronic phases. The PubMed database was searched for studies published between 1990 and 2021 on CD diagnostic. Fifty-six published studies that met the criteria were analyzed and included in the meta-analysis, evaluating diagnostic accuracy through sensitivity and specificity. For Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), Fluorescent Antibody Technique (IFAT), Hemagglutination Test (HmT), Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and (Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction qPCR diagnosis methods, the sensitivity had a median of 99.0%, 78.0%, 75.0%, 76.0% and 94.0%, respectively; while specificity presented a median of 99.0%, 99.0%, 99.0%, 98.0% and 98.0%, respectively. This meta-analysis showed that ELISA and qPCR techniques had a higher performance compared to other methods of diagnosing CD in the chronic and acute phases, respectively. It was concluded by means of the AUC restricted to the false positive rates, that the ELISA diagnostic test presents the highest performance in diagnosing acute and chronic CD, compared to serological and molecular tests. Future studies focusing on new CD diagnostics approaches should be targeted.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was funded by Universidad Catolica de Santa Maria (grants 27574-R-2020, and 28048-R-2021).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Not applicable.
