Assessment of Rapid Diagnostic Tests Algorithms in Transfusion Medicine Setting

M. Coulibaly, B. Maiga, D. Samaké, M. Diawara, M. Traoré, Valentin Sagara, B. Traoré, O. Guindo, A. Dolo
{"title":"Assessment of Rapid Diagnostic Tests Algorithms in Transfusion Medicine Setting","authors":"M. Coulibaly, B. Maiga, D. Samaké, M. Diawara, M. Traoré, Valentin Sagara, B. Traoré, O. Guindo, A. Dolo","doi":"10.4236/ABC.2021.111005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The rapid diagnostic tests play a pivotal role in the screening of viral \nmarkers in blood qualification for transfusion in limited resource setting. \nTherefore, it is important to assess their analytical performances to ensure \ntheir proper functioning. Material and Methods: We performed \na cross- sectional study by successive recruitment to assess the diagnostic value \nof rapid diagnostic tests algorithms using ELISA as a reference test. A total \nof 661 blood from donors were enrolled for this study. Rapid Diagnostic Tests \n(RDTs) and ELISA tests were performed for each sample by a couple of \ndouble-blinded biotechnologists. Data were collected on case report form and \ncaptured in Microsoft Excel then the file was imported and analyzed using R \nsoftware version 4.0.3. Results: The diagnostic accuracy for the \nalgorithms are summarized in Table 1. For HIV-algorithm, the \ninternal validity parameters were as follow: sensitivity (sens) 99.0% (95% CI = \n97.8, 99.5); specificity (spec) 98.3% (95% CI = 90.9, 99.7); positive \nlikelihood ratio (PLR) 57.4 (95% CI = 8.2, 401.0); negative likelihood ratio \n(NLR) 0.01 (95% CI = 0.0005, 0.02); diagnostic odd ratio (DOR) 4710. HBV-Ag/Ab \nRDTs achieve the following diagnostic accuracy: sens 99.7% (95% CI = 98.3, \n99.9); spec 98.8% (95% CI = 96.9, 95.5); PLR 81.8 (95% CI = 30.9, 217.0); NLR \n0.003 (95% CI = 0.0004, 0.02); DOR 14,110. The \nanalytical performances of HCV-Ab RDTs were as follow: sens 98.7% (95% CI = \n97.5, 99.4); spec 93.1% (95% CI = 78.0, 98.1); PLR 14.3 (95% CI = 3.8, 54.5); \nNLR 1.5 (95% CI = 0.8, 2.8); DOR 962.6. The parameters evaluating the external \nvalidity of RDTs screening for the three viral markers when the theorical \nprevalence was 5% are summarized in Figure 3. At the prevalence , 99.99% and 99.94%. At the same prevalence, we found \nthe following Positive Predictive Values (PPV) 70.82%, 77.59% and 37.35% for \nHIV-Ag/Ab RDTs, HBV-Ag RDTs and HCV-Ab RDTs algorithms, respectively. The \noverall areas under the received operating characteristic (ROC) curves were \n98.6%, 99.2% and 99.2%; 95.9% for HIV-Ag/Ab RDTs, HBV-Ag RDTs and HCV-Ab RDTs \nalgorithms, respectively. Conclusion: RDTs algorithms can play a pivotal \nrole in the screening of HIV-Ab/Ag, HBs-Ag in the setting of resources \nlimited-countries where financial and technical expertise shortages are a \nstandard fare. However, their use for diagnostic purposes must be done with \ngreat caution and the result must necessarily be confirmed with an ELISA or \nmolecular technique particularly for HCV-RDTs algorithm which achieved an NLR \nvalue > 0.1.","PeriodicalId":59114,"journal":{"name":"生物化学进展(英文)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"生物化学进展(英文)","FirstCategoryId":"1089","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/ABC.2021.111005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The rapid diagnostic tests play a pivotal role in the screening of viral markers in blood qualification for transfusion in limited resource setting. Therefore, it is important to assess their analytical performances to ensure their proper functioning. Material and Methods: We performed a cross- sectional study by successive recruitment to assess the diagnostic value of rapid diagnostic tests algorithms using ELISA as a reference test. A total of 661 blood from donors were enrolled for this study. Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) and ELISA tests were performed for each sample by a couple of double-blinded biotechnologists. Data were collected on case report form and captured in Microsoft Excel then the file was imported and analyzed using R software version 4.0.3. Results: The diagnostic accuracy for the algorithms are summarized in Table 1. For HIV-algorithm, the internal validity parameters were as follow: sensitivity (sens) 99.0% (95% CI = 97.8, 99.5); specificity (spec) 98.3% (95% CI = 90.9, 99.7); positive likelihood ratio (PLR) 57.4 (95% CI = 8.2, 401.0); negative likelihood ratio (NLR) 0.01 (95% CI = 0.0005, 0.02); diagnostic odd ratio (DOR) 4710. HBV-Ag/Ab RDTs achieve the following diagnostic accuracy: sens 99.7% (95% CI = 98.3, 99.9); spec 98.8% (95% CI = 96.9, 95.5); PLR 81.8 (95% CI = 30.9, 217.0); NLR 0.003 (95% CI = 0.0004, 0.02); DOR 14,110. The analytical performances of HCV-Ab RDTs were as follow: sens 98.7% (95% CI = 97.5, 99.4); spec 93.1% (95% CI = 78.0, 98.1); PLR 14.3 (95% CI = 3.8, 54.5); NLR 1.5 (95% CI = 0.8, 2.8); DOR 962.6. The parameters evaluating the external validity of RDTs screening for the three viral markers when the theorical prevalence was 5% are summarized in Figure 3. At the prevalence , 99.99% and 99.94%. At the same prevalence, we found the following Positive Predictive Values (PPV) 70.82%, 77.59% and 37.35% for HIV-Ag/Ab RDTs, HBV-Ag RDTs and HCV-Ab RDTs algorithms, respectively. The overall areas under the received operating characteristic (ROC) curves were 98.6%, 99.2% and 99.2%; 95.9% for HIV-Ag/Ab RDTs, HBV-Ag RDTs and HCV-Ab RDTs algorithms, respectively. Conclusion: RDTs algorithms can play a pivotal role in the screening of HIV-Ab/Ag, HBs-Ag in the setting of resources limited-countries where financial and technical expertise shortages are a standard fare. However, their use for diagnostic purposes must be done with great caution and the result must necessarily be confirmed with an ELISA or molecular technique particularly for HCV-RDTs algorithm which achieved an NLR value > 0.1.
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
输血医学环境中快速诊断测试算法的评估
背景:在资源有限的情况下,快速诊断测试在筛选血液中的病毒标志物以获得输血资格方面发挥着关键作用。因此,重要的是要评估其分析性能,以确保其正常运行。材料和方法:我们通过连续招募进行了一项横断面研究,以评估使用ELISA作为参考测试的快速诊断测试算法的诊断价值。本研究共招募了661名献血者的血液。由两位双盲生物技术专家对每个样本进行快速诊断测试(RDT)和ELISA测试。在病例报告表上收集数据并在Microsoft Excel中捕获,然后导入文件并使用4.0.3版R软件进行分析。结果:表1总结了算法的诊断准确性。HIV算法的内部有效性参数如下:敏感性(sens)为99.0%(95%CI=97.899.5);特异性(spec)98.3%(95%CI=90.999.7);阳性似然比(PLR)57.4(95%可信区间为8.2401.0);负似然比(NLR)0.01(95%CI=0.0005,0.02);诊断奇数比(DOR)4710。HBV-Ag/Ab-RDTs的诊断准确率为99.7%(95%CI=98.399.9);规格98.8%(95%置信区间=96.9,95.5);PLR 81.8(95%CI=30.9217.0);NLR 0.003(95%CI=0.0004,0.02);DOR 14110。HCV-Ab-RDTs的分析性能如下:敏感度98.7%(95%CI=97.5,99.4);规格93.1%(95%CI=78.0,98.1);PLR 14.3(95%CI=3.8,54.5);NLR 1.5(95%CI=0.8,2.8);或962.6。当理论流行率为5%时,评估三种病毒标志物RDT筛选的外部有效性的参数总结在图3中。在相同的流行率下,我们发现HIV Ag/Ab RDTs、HBV Ag-RDTs和HCV Ab-RDTs算法的阳性预测值(PPV)分别为70.82%、77.59%和37.35%。接收操作特性(ROC)曲线下的总面积分别为98.6%、99.2%和99.2%;HIV Ag/Ab RDTs、HBV Ag RDTs和HCV Ab-RDTs算法分别为95.9%。结论:在资源有限的国家,在资金和技术专业知识短缺的情况下,RDTs算法可以在HIV抗体/抗原、HBs抗原的筛查中发挥关键作用。然而,必须非常谨慎地将其用于诊断目的,并且必须使用ELISA或分子技术来确认结果,特别是对于NLR值>0.1的HCV RDTs算法。
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
251
期刊最新文献
Radiation-Induced Chromosome Instability in WTK1 and TK6 Human Lymphoblastoid Cells Association between Metabolic Syndrome Components and Serum High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein or Interleukin-6 Levels among Congolese Adults Possible Relevance of the Allende Meteorite Conditions in Prebiotic Chemistry: An Insight into the Chondrules and Organic Compounds Persistently High Glycated Hemoglobin in a Subgroup of Type 2 Diabetic Patients Who Failed Usual Oral Antihyperglycemics and Insulin in Côte d’Ivoire Starch Metabolism in Plant and Its Applications in Food Industry
×
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:481959085
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