TY - JOUR
T1 - Rapid Molecular Tests for Influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, and Other Respiratory Viruses
T2 - A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Accuracy and Clinical Impact Studies
AU - Vos, Laura M.
AU - Bruning, Andrea H.L.
AU - Reitsma, Johannes B.
AU - Schuurman, Rob
AU - Riezebos-Brilman, Annelies
AU - Hoepelman, Andy I.M.
AU - Oosterheert, Jan Jelrik
N1 - © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: [email protected].
PY - 2019/10/1
Y1 - 2019/10/1
N2 - We systematically reviewed available evidence from Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library on diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of commercially available rapid (results <3 hours) molecular diagnostics for respiratory viruses as compared to conventional molecular tests. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria for diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions criteria for randomized and observational impact studies, respectively. Sixty-three DTA reports (56 studies) were meta-analyzed with a pooled sensitivity of 90.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.7%-93.1%) and specificity of 96.1% (95% CI, 94.2%-97.9%) for the detection of either influenza virus (n = 29), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) (n = 1), influenza virus and RSV (n = 19), or a viral panel including influenza virus and RSV (n = 14). The 15 included impact studies (5 randomized) were very heterogeneous and results were therefore inconclusive. However, we suggest that implementation of rapid diagnostics in hospital care settings should be considered.
AB - We systematically reviewed available evidence from Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library on diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of commercially available rapid (results <3 hours) molecular diagnostics for respiratory viruses as compared to conventional molecular tests. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria for diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions criteria for randomized and observational impact studies, respectively. Sixty-three DTA reports (56 studies) were meta-analyzed with a pooled sensitivity of 90.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.7%-93.1%) and specificity of 96.1% (95% CI, 94.2%-97.9%) for the detection of either influenza virus (n = 29), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) (n = 1), influenza virus and RSV (n = 19), or a viral panel including influenza virus and RSV (n = 14). The 15 included impact studies (5 randomized) were very heterogeneous and results were therefore inconclusive. However, we suggest that implementation of rapid diagnostics in hospital care settings should be considered.
KW - diagnostic accuracy
KW - impact
KW - molecular diagnostics
KW - rapid test
KW - review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064412261&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/cid/ciz056
DO - 10.1093/cid/ciz056
M3 - Review article
C2 - 30689772
SN - 1058-4838
VL - 69
SP - 1243
EP - 1253
JO - Clinical Infectious Diseases
JF - Clinical Infectious Diseases
IS - 7
ER -