Abstract
Rabies is almost invariably fatal once clinical symptoms manifest. Timely and accurate diagnosis is essential for effective treatment and prevention. Dogs are the principal reservoirs of the virus, particularly in developing nations, highlighting the importance of precise diagnostic and control measures to prevent human cases. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the accuracy of laboratory tests for diagnosing rabies in humans and dogs. The PubMed database was searched for published studies on rabies diagnosis between 1990 and 2024. Following PRISMA statement recommendations, we included 60 studies that met the selection criteria. The findings demonstrate the effectiveness of immunological tests, such as the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and molecular tests, such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), in diagnosing rabies in humans. Similarly, immunological tests, rapid immunochromatographic tests (RIT), ELISA, and molecular tests (RT-PCR) were effective in diagnosing rabies in dogs. Compared to the direct fluorescent antibody test (DFAT), the area under the curve restricted to false positive rates (AUCFPR= 0.887) exhibited considerable variability and lower diagnostic accuracy. Both ELISA (AUCFPR= 0.909) and RT-PCR (AUCFPR= 0.905) offered more consistent and reliable results. Notably, RIT displayed the highest performance (AUCFPR= 0.949), with excellent sensitivity and specificity, underscoring the superior diagnostic capabilities of these methods over the traditional DFAT. Given the performance of the DFAT, it is imperative to reassess and modernize rabies diagnostic protocols by integrating advanced technological methodologies. Enhancing diagnostic precision for humans and dogs is essential for facilitating timely and effective interventions, curbing viral transmission, and ultimately decreasing mortality rates.
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
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at PubMed
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
