Occurrence of False-Positive Tests and Cross-reactions Between COVID-19 and Dengue With Implications During Diagnosis: A Mixed Evidence Synthesis

IF 1.8 Q3 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Infectious microbes & diseases Pub Date : 2023-03-29 DOI:10.1097/IM9.0000000000000116
Daniel Digwo, Chidinma P. Elebe, V. Chigor, Stella N. Madueke, Christian K. Ezeh, A. Ike
{"title":"Occurrence of False-Positive Tests and Cross-reactions Between COVID-19 and Dengue With Implications During Diagnosis: A Mixed Evidence Synthesis","authors":"Daniel Digwo, Chidinma P. Elebe, V. Chigor, Stella N. Madueke, Christian K. Ezeh, A. Ike","doi":"10.1097/IM9.0000000000000116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This review aimed to assess the occurrence of false-positive serological reaction between dengue and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its implications for diagnosis. Evidence syntheses were conducted by systematically reviewing available literature using multiple databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar and medRxiv. Among a total of 16 presented cases from clinical settings, cross-reaction to COVID-19 serological tests was observed in two (12.5%) dengue-positive patients, while 14 patients (87.5%) confirmed positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) showed a cross-reaction with dengue serological tests, leading to misdiagnosis and mismanagement by attending clinicians. Of 1789 SARS-CoV-2-positive sera, cross-reaction to dengue serological tests was observed in 180 sera (10%), which is higher than the cross-reaction observed for SARS-CoV-2 in archived pre-COVID-19 sera positive for a dengue infection (75 of 811, 9.2%, P = 0.674). Clinicians in tropical regions are therefore advised to interpret serological tests with caution and use a more pragmatic approach to triage these infections.","PeriodicalId":73374,"journal":{"name":"Infectious microbes & diseases","volume":"42 17","pages":"64 - 75"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infectious microbes & diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/IM9.0000000000000116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract This review aimed to assess the occurrence of false-positive serological reaction between dengue and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its implications for diagnosis. Evidence syntheses were conducted by systematically reviewing available literature using multiple databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar and medRxiv. Among a total of 16 presented cases from clinical settings, cross-reaction to COVID-19 serological tests was observed in two (12.5%) dengue-positive patients, while 14 patients (87.5%) confirmed positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) showed a cross-reaction with dengue serological tests, leading to misdiagnosis and mismanagement by attending clinicians. Of 1789 SARS-CoV-2-positive sera, cross-reaction to dengue serological tests was observed in 180 sera (10%), which is higher than the cross-reaction observed for SARS-CoV-2 in archived pre-COVID-19 sera positive for a dengue infection (75 of 811, 9.2%, P = 0.674). Clinicians in tropical regions are therefore advised to interpret serological tests with caution and use a more pragmatic approach to triage these infections.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新冠肺炎和登革热假阳性检测的发生和交叉反应及其在诊断中的意义:混合证据综合
摘要本综述旨在评估登革热与2019冠状病毒病(新冠肺炎)之间假阳性血清学反应的发生及其对诊断的影响。证据综合是通过使用多个数据库系统审查现有文献进行的,包括Web of Science、PubMed、Google Scholar和medRxiv。在总共16例临床病例中,两名(12.5%)登革热阳性患者对新冠肺炎血清学检测呈交叉反应,14名(87.5%)确诊为严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2型(SARS-CoV-2)阳性的患者与登革热血清学检测呈交互反应,导致就诊临床医生误诊和管理不善。在1789份严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型阳性血清中,这高于在登革热感染的存档COVID-19前血清中观察到的SARS-CoV-2交叉反应(811份中的75份,9.2%,P=0.674)。因此,建议热带地区的临床医生谨慎解释血清学测试,并使用更实用的方法对这些感染进行分诊。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Indirect ELISAs Based on Nipah and Langya Virus Proteins for Detecting Antibodies in Animals. Liposomal Nanotraps Neutralize Listeria monocytogenes Toxins to Enhance Macrophage Viability and Antibacterial Capacity. Repurposing Diflunisal as an Antivirulence Agent Against Staphylococcus aureus. The Effect of Retinoic Acid on Neutrophil Innate Immune Interactions With Cutaneous Bacterial Pathogens. Evaluation of 10 Different Pipelines for Bacterial Single-Nucleotide Variant Detection
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1