PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Vaillant, Michel T
AU  - Philippy, Fred
AU  - Barré, Jessica
AU  - Bulaev, Dmitry
AU  - Garba, Amadou T
TI  - Diagnostic tests for Schistosomiasis for low prevalence settings: a systematic review and Meta-Analysis
AID  - 10.1101/2021.05.05.21256678
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.05.05.21256678
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/09/2021.05.05.21256678.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/09/2021.05.05.21256678.full
AB  - Background Tests for diagnosing schistosomiasis in areas where prevalence is low due to control programme of the disease should be suffiently sensitive to detect the residual disease. If they had sufficient diagnostic accuracy they could replace conventional microscopy as they provide a quicker answer and are easier to use.Objectives To compare sensitivity and specificity of new tests, especially rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), with regard to a certain reference test.Methods We searched the electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and LILACS up to February 2021. Furthermore we searched results from the previous meta-analyses.We included studies that used microscopy as the reference standard: for S. haematobium, microscopy of urine prepared by filtration, centrifugation, or sedimentation methods; and for S. mansoni, microscopy of stool by Kato-Katz thick smear.Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed quality of the data using QUADAS-2, and performed meta-analysis where appropriate. Grading of evidence was done with the GRADE methodology by using GradePro. Using the variability of test thresholds, we used a bayesian bivariate random-effects summary receiver operating characteristic model for all eligible tests. We investigated heterogeneity, and carried out sensitivity analyses where possible. Results for sensitivity and specificity are presented as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results The review gathered 203 articles stating a diagnostic test for the diagnosis of S. haematobium and S. mansoni out of which 114 entered the analyses. Microscopy of Urine filtration or Kato-Katz smears were used as the reference standard.Compared with Kato-Katz smears, AWE-SEA ELISA (Se=94%; Sp=64%) is comparable to CCA1 (Se=87%; Sp=60%). IgG ELISA (Se=93%; Sp=68%) has also a very good ability to detect true positive as well as CAA cassette (Se=73%; Sp=68%). For S. haematobium, proteinuria (Se=59%; Sp=83%) and haematuria (Se=74%; Sp=87%) reagent strips showed reasonably high specificities with a considerably better sensitivity for the haematuria test.There are interesting promising new diagnostic tests that were tested in field studies. However prevalences of the locations where these studies took place are variable and there are no specific study with a high number of patients in areas with low level of schistosomiasis infection.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Trialthe study was expected to become a paper and since october 2019 PROSPERO register for reviews require that serch is not started at the time of submissionFunding StatementThe study was funded by a grant of the Department of Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases of the World Health OrganisationAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:individual studies received IRB approvalAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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.YesData used in this study are available in the appendices