Accuracy of malaria diagnostic tests performed on non-invasively collected samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background During the last decade, many studies have assessed the performance of malaria tests on non-invasively collected specimens, but no systematic review has hitherto estimated the overall performance of these tests. We report here the first meta-analysis estimating the diagnostic performance o...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jean Jacques Noubiap, Celestin Danwang, Jean Gaudart, Jean Cyr Yombi, Annie Robert, Jacob Souopgui
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMJ Publishing Group 2021-06-01
Series:BMJ Global Health
Online Access:https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/6/e005634.full
id doaj-8d119e328ee648ce8c493a2a5aff6790
record_format Article
spelling doaj-8d119e328ee648ce8c493a2a5aff67902021-08-01T09:30:07ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Global Health2059-79082021-06-016610.1136/bmjgh-2021-005634Accuracy of malaria diagnostic tests performed on non-invasively collected samples: a systematic review and meta-analysisJean Jacques Noubiap0Celestin Danwang1Jean Gaudart2Jean Cyr Yombi3Annie Robert4Jacob Souopgui5Centre for Heart Rhythm Disorders, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia's, AustraliaEpidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, BelgiumAix Marseille Univ, IRD, INSERM, SESSTIM, ISSPAM, Marseille, FranceDepartment of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, BelgiumEpidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, BelgiumDepartment of Molecular Biology, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Gosselies, BelgiumBackground During the last decade, many studies have assessed the performance of malaria tests on non-invasively collected specimens, but no systematic review has hitherto estimated the overall performance of these tests. We report here the first meta-analysis estimating the diagnostic performance of malaria diagnostic tests performed on saliva, urine, faeces, skin odour (‘sniff and tell’) and hair, using either microscopy or PCR on blood sample as reference test.Methods We searched on PubMed, EMBASE, African Journals Online and Cochrane Infectious Diseases from inception until 19 January 2021 for relevant primary studies. A random effects model was used to estimate the overall performance of various diagnostic methods on different types of specimen.Results Eighteen studies providing 30 data sets were included in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic OR (DOR) of PCR were 84.5% (95% CI 79.3% to 88.6%), 97.3% (95% CI 95.3% to 98.5%) and 184.9 (95% CI 95.8 to 356.9) in saliva, respectively; 57.4% (95% CI 41.4% to 72.1%), 98.6% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.3%) and 47.2 (95% CI 22.1 to 101.1) in urine, respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity and DOR of rapid diagnostic test for malaria in urine was 59.8% (95% CI 40.0% to 76.9%), 96.9% (95% CI 91.0% to 99.0%) and 30.8 (95% CI:23.5 to 40.4).Conclusion In settings where PCR is available, saliva and urine samples should be considered for PCR-based malaria diagnosis only if blood samples cannot be collected. The performance of rapid diagnostic testing in the urine is limited, especially its sensitivity. Malaria testing on non-invasively collected specimen still needs substantial improvement.https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/6/e005634.full
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jean Jacques Noubiap
Celestin Danwang
Jean Gaudart
Jean Cyr Yombi
Annie Robert
Jacob Souopgui
spellingShingle Jean Jacques Noubiap
Celestin Danwang
Jean Gaudart
Jean Cyr Yombi
Annie Robert
Jacob Souopgui
Accuracy of malaria diagnostic tests performed on non-invasively collected samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BMJ Global Health
author_facet Jean Jacques Noubiap
Celestin Danwang
Jean Gaudart
Jean Cyr Yombi
Annie Robert
Jacob Souopgui
author_sort Jean Jacques Noubiap
title Accuracy of malaria diagnostic tests performed on non-invasively collected samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Accuracy of malaria diagnostic tests performed on non-invasively collected samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Accuracy of malaria diagnostic tests performed on non-invasively collected samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Accuracy of malaria diagnostic tests performed on non-invasively collected samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of malaria diagnostic tests performed on non-invasively collected samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort accuracy of malaria diagnostic tests performed on non-invasively collected samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
series BMJ Global Health
issn 2059-7908
publishDate 2021-06-01
description Background During the last decade, many studies have assessed the performance of malaria tests on non-invasively collected specimens, but no systematic review has hitherto estimated the overall performance of these tests. We report here the first meta-analysis estimating the diagnostic performance of malaria diagnostic tests performed on saliva, urine, faeces, skin odour (‘sniff and tell’) and hair, using either microscopy or PCR on blood sample as reference test.Methods We searched on PubMed, EMBASE, African Journals Online and Cochrane Infectious Diseases from inception until 19 January 2021 for relevant primary studies. A random effects model was used to estimate the overall performance of various diagnostic methods on different types of specimen.Results Eighteen studies providing 30 data sets were included in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic OR (DOR) of PCR were 84.5% (95% CI 79.3% to 88.6%), 97.3% (95% CI 95.3% to 98.5%) and 184.9 (95% CI 95.8 to 356.9) in saliva, respectively; 57.4% (95% CI 41.4% to 72.1%), 98.6% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.3%) and 47.2 (95% CI 22.1 to 101.1) in urine, respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity and DOR of rapid diagnostic test for malaria in urine was 59.8% (95% CI 40.0% to 76.9%), 96.9% (95% CI 91.0% to 99.0%) and 30.8 (95% CI:23.5 to 40.4).Conclusion In settings where PCR is available, saliva and urine samples should be considered for PCR-based malaria diagnosis only if blood samples cannot be collected. The performance of rapid diagnostic testing in the urine is limited, especially its sensitivity. Malaria testing on non-invasively collected specimen still needs substantial improvement.
url https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/6/e005634.full
work_keys_str_mv AT jeanjacquesnoubiap accuracyofmalariadiagnostictestsperformedonnoninvasivelycollectedsamplesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT celestindanwang accuracyofmalariadiagnostictestsperformedonnoninvasivelycollectedsamplesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jeangaudart accuracyofmalariadiagnostictestsperformedonnoninvasivelycollectedsamplesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jeancyryombi accuracyofmalariadiagnostictestsperformedonnoninvasivelycollectedsamplesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT annierobert accuracyofmalariadiagnostictestsperformedonnoninvasivelycollectedsamplesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jacobsouopgui accuracyofmalariadiagnostictestsperformedonnoninvasivelycollectedsamplesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
_version_ 1721246325423472640