Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Oxford Medical School, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Apr 26;15(4):e0009359. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009359. eCollection 2021 Apr.
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.
登革热是世界上最常见的蚊媒病毒,但由于其非特异性表现,仍然具有诊断挑战性。获得实验室确认的机会有限,因此大多数报告的数字仅基于临床诊断,其准确性不确定。本系统评价评估了传统(1997 年)和修订(2009 年)世界卫生组织登革热临床病例定义的诊断准确性,这是大多数国家指南的基础。
方法/主要发现:在 PubMed、EMBASE、Scopus、OpenGrey 和年度登革热公报中搜索了评估未经修改的临床标准诊断准确性的研究。两名审查员(NR/SL)独立评估了合格性、提取了数据,并使用改良的 QUADAS-2 评估了偏倚风险。通过引文网络分析找到了其他记录。使用双变量混合效应回归模型进行了荟萃分析。分别分析了修改标准的研究。本系统评价方案已在 PROSPERO(CRD42020165998)上注册。我们分别确定了 11 个和 12 个数据集来评估 1997 年和 2009 年的定义,以及 6 个使用修改标准的数据集。1997 年和 2009 年定义的敏感性分别为 93%(95%CI:77-98)和 93%(95%CI:86-96)。特异性分别为 29%(95%CI:8-65)和 31%(95%CI:18-48)。年龄极端时诊断性能会下降。没有修改可以显著提高准确性。
结论/意义:临床标准的诊断准确性较差,这对登革热控制的监测和公共卫生应对具有重要意义。作为大多数报告数字的基础,这与规划资源分配的政策制定者和研究人员建模传播有关,特别是在 COVID-19 期间。