Department of HIV, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Department of HIV, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Lancet HIV. 2018 Jun;5(6):e277-e290. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(18)30044-4. Epub 2018 Apr 24.
BACKGROUND: The ability of individuals to use HIV self-tests correctly is debated. To inform the 2016 WHO recommendation on HIV self-testing, we assessed the reliability and performance of HIV rapid diagnostic tests when used by self-testers. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, PopLine, and Embase, conference abstracts, and additional grey literature between Jan 1, 1995, and April 30, 2016, for observational and experimental studies reporting on HIV self-testing performance. We excluded studies evaluating home specimen collection because patients did not interpret their own test results. We extracted data independently, using standardised extraction forms. Outcomes of interest were agreement between self-testers and health-care workers, sensitivity, and specificity. We calculated κ to establish the level of agreement and pooled κ estimates using a random-effects model, by approach (directly assisted or unassisted) and type of specimen (blood or oral fluid). We examined heterogeneity with the I statistic. FINDINGS: 25 studies met inclusion criteria (22 to 5662 participants). Quality assessment with QUADAS-2 showed studies had low risk of bias and incomplete reporting in accordance with the STARD checklist. Raw proportion of agreement ranged from 85·4% to 100%, and reported κ ranged from fair (κ 0·277, p<0·001) to almost perfect (κ 0·99, n=25). Pooled κ suggested almost perfect agreement for both types of approaches (directly assisted 0·98, 95% CI 0·96-0·99 and unassisted 0·97, 0·96-0·98; I=34·5%, 0-97·8). Excluding two outliers, sensitivity and specificity was higher for blood-based rapid diagnostic tests (4/16) compared with oral fluid rapid diagnostic tests (13/16). The most common error that affected test performance was incorrect specimen collection (oral swab or finger prick). Study limitations included the use of different reference standards and no disaggregation of results by individuals taking antiretrovirals. INTERPRETATION: Self-testers can reliably and accurately do HIV rapid diagnostic tests, as compared with trained health-care workers. Errors in performance might be reduced through the improvement of rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing, particularly to make sample collection easier and to simplify instructions for use. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Unitaid.
背景:个体正确使用 HIV 自检试剂的能力存在争议。为了为 2016 年世卫组织关于 HIV 自检的建议提供信息,我们评估了自检者使用 HIV 快速诊断检测时的可靠性和性能。
方法:在这项系统评价和荟萃分析中,我们检索了 1995 年 1 月 1 日至 2016 年 4 月 30 日期间发表的关于 HIV 自检性能的观察性和实验性研究的 PubMed、PopLine 和 Embase、会议摘要和其他灰色文献。我们排除了评估家庭标本采集的研究,因为患者无法解释自己的检测结果。我们使用标准化的提取表格独立提取数据。主要结局指标为自检者与卫生保健工作者之间的一致性、敏感性和特异性。我们使用随机效应模型,通过方法(直接辅助或非辅助)和标本类型(血液或口腔液)计算 κ 值以确定一致性水平,并对 κ 估计值进行汇总。我们用 I 统计量来检查异质性。
结果:25 项研究符合纳入标准(22 项至 5662 名参与者)。使用 QUADAS-2 进行质量评估表明,这些研究的偏倚风险较低,且根据 STARD 清单报告不完整。原始一致性比例范围为 85.4%至 100%,报告的 κ 值范围为差(κ=0.277,P<0.001)至近乎完美(κ=0.99,n=25)。汇总 κ 值表明两种方法均具有近乎完美的一致性(直接辅助法为 0.98,95%CI 0.96-0.99,非辅助法为 0.97,0.96-0.98;I=34.5%,0-97.8)。排除两个异常值后,基于血液的快速诊断检测的敏感性和特异性(4/16)高于基于口腔液的快速诊断检测(13/16)。影响检测性能的最常见错误是标本采集不正确(口腔拭子或指尖采血)。研究的局限性包括使用不同的参考标准,以及没有按个体服用抗逆转录病毒药物的情况对结果进行分类。
解释:与经过培训的卫生保健工作者相比,自检者可以可靠且准确地进行 HIV 快速诊断检测。通过改进用于自检的快速诊断检测,特别是使样本采集更容易,并简化使用说明,可能会降低检测性能的错误。
资助:比尔及梅琳达·盖茨基金会和联合国艾滋病规划署。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-3-10
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-8-12
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-3-24
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-9-15
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-8-27
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-7-22
Diagnostics (Basel). 2025-7-21
Integr Pharm Res Pract. 2024-12-20
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2025-2-1
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2025-1-1
Trop Med Int Health. 2016-6
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2016-1