[Meta-analysis for the pooled sensitivity and specificity of anti-human immunodeficiency virus Ab rapid tests]

BACKGROUND

Many immunochromatography (ICA) kits for anti-human immunodeficiency virus type (HIV) antibody (Ab) have been introduced to improve the accessibility of HIV Ab tests. However, qualified evaluation reports for HIV rapid tests are not enough to validate their performances. Meta-analysis for the performances of the HIV Ab rapid tests was performed in this study.

METHODS

PubMed database was searched with combination of search terms, 'human immunodeficiency virus', 'HIV Ab', 'rapid test', 'immunochromatography', 'performance', 'sensitivity', and 'specificity'. Criteria of inclusion were performance studies for HIV ICA kits with serum or EDTA whole blood. Methodological qualities were evaluated with standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) checklists by two investigators. Homogeneity among selected studies was evaluated and then pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Positive and negative predictive values were simulated with presumed HIV prevalence in Korea.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were selected from 12 high-qualified papers with STARD checklists. The performance of 23 studies were found to be heterogeneous (P<0.1) and random effect model was used. Pooled sensitivity was 99.71% (95% CI: 99.45-99.97%) and pooled specificity was 99.27% (95% CI: 98.83-99.70%). With HIV prevalence of 0.03%, positive and negative predictive values were presumed to be 3.936% and 99.999%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis for HIV ICA rapid tests showed good performance. In consideration of low positive predictive values of HIV rapid tests, confirmation by enzyme immunoassay or Western blot is still needed. This study would be helpful in evaluating and establishing proper performance guideline for those kits not fully evaluated.

[Meta-analysis for the pooled sensitivity and specificity of hepatitis B surface antigen rapid tests]

BACKGROUND

Although hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) rapid test based on immunochromatographic assay (ICA) is now widely used, the test has not been evaluated sufficiently enough to validate its performance. Thus, it is important to summarize the clinical performance of the test kits. In this study, we performed meta-analysis for the performance of the HBsAg rapid tests.

METHODS

PubMed database was searched using keywords about the accuracy of diagnostic tests for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Two investigators assessed methodological quality utilizing standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) checklist. After performing a heterogeneity test, we obtained pooled sensitivity and specificity. Positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were simulated according to HBV prevalence.

RESULTS

A total of 38 studies was selected from 10 papers. The quality scores ranged from 3 to 13 (median, 8). Kappa value was good (0.85). The performance of the 38 studies was heterogeneous. When 33 studies with better quality from 7 papers were re-selected, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 98.07% (95% confidence interval, CI: 97.67-98.47%) and 99.56% (95% CI: 99.21-99.91%), respectively. With an HBV prevalence of 5%, PPV and NPV were predicted to be 92.14% and 99.90%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In view of high HBV prevalence in Korea, it is thought that the HBsAg rapid test can be used for HBV screening in small-sized laboratories or for epidemiologic studies. This study should be helpful in establishing a guideline for the proper performance evaluation of the HBsAg rapid tests.