Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Diagnostic accuracy of the WHO clinical definitions for dengue and implications for surveillance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Raafat, Nader; Loganathan, Shanghavie; Mukaka, Mavuto; Blacksell, Stuart D; Maude, Richard James.
  • Raafat N; Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
  • Loganathan S; Oxford Medical School, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
  • Mukaka M; Oxford Medical School, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
  • Blacksell SD; Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
  • Maude RJ; Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis ; 15(4): e0009359, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1201403
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Dengue is the world's most common mosquito-borne virus but remains diagnostically challenging due to its nonspecific presentation. Access to laboratory confirmation is limited and thus most reported figures are based on clinical diagnosis alone, the accuracy of which is uncertain. This systematic review assesses the diagnostic accuracy of the traditional (1997) and revised (2009) WHO clinical case definitions for dengue fever, the basis for most national guidelines. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

FINDINGS:

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, OpenGrey, and the annual Dengue Bulletin were searched for studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of the unmodified clinical criteria. Two reviewers (NR/SL) independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias using a modified QUADAS-2. Additional records were found by citation network analysis. A meta-analysis was done using a bivariate mixed-effects regression model. Studies that modified criteria were analysed separately. This systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020165998). We identified 11 and 12 datasets assessing the 1997 and 2009 definition, respectively, and 6 using modified criteria. Sensitivity was 93% (95% CI 77-98) and 93% (95% CI 86-96) for the 1997 and 2009 definitions, respectively. Specificity was 29% (95% CI 8-65) and 31% (95% CI 18-48) for the 1997 and 2009 definitions, respectively. Diagnostic performance suffered at the extremes of age. No modification significantly improved accuracy. CONCLUSIONS/

SIGNIFICANCE:

Diagnostic accuracy of clinical criteria is poor, with significant implications for surveillance and public health responses for dengue control. As the basis for most reported figures, this has relevance to policymakers planning resource allocation and researchers modelling transmission, particularly during COVID-19.
Subject(s)

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Dengue Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Journal subject: Tropical Medicine Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Journal.pntd.0009359

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Dengue Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Journal subject: Tropical Medicine Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Journal.pntd.0009359