Table 2 Characteristics of studies: test name, reference test, type of evaluation and diagnostic performance
From: Sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests for Lassa fever: a systematic review
Author | Test Name | Reference Test | Type of Samples | Number of Samples Tested | Type of evaluation | Sensitivity(95% CI) | Specificity(95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boisen et al | Recombinant Lassa Virus Rapid Diagnostic Test (ReLASV RDT) | Nikisins qPCR | Serum and plasma | 451 | Field evaluation | 91.2(75.2–97.7) | 86(71.4–94.2) |
ReLASV Ag ELISA | Serum and plasma | 451 | Field evaluation | 94.8(81.3–99.1) | 100(88.6–100) | ||
Boisen et al | Recombinant Lassa Virus Antigen ELISA(ReLASV Ag ELISA) | Nikisins qPCR | Serum and plasma | 451 | Field evaluation | 91.2(75.2–97.7) | 86(71.4–94.2) |
Bausch et al | Combined ELISA Antigen/IgM assay | Virus Isolation | Serum | 305 | Laboratory | 88(77–95) | 90(88–91) |
Indirect Immunofluorescent antibody test | Virus Isolation | Serum | 305 | Laboratory validation | 70(57–81) | 88(85–90) | |
Gabriel et al | IgM ELISA | Standard RT-PCR | Serum | 270 | Laboratory | 31.1(25.6–37) | 95.7(92.8–97.7) |
Recombinant IgM/IgG ELISA | Standard RT-PCR | Serum | 270 | Laboratory | 25.9(20.8–31.6) | 100(98.2–100) | |
Ibekwe et al | IgM ELISA | Standard RT-PCR | Serum | 72 | Laboratory | 57(41.05–72.95) | 77(63.06–90.94) |
Meulen et al. | IgM/IgG Immunoblot | Indirect Immunofluorescent assay(IFA) | Serum | 157 | Laboratory | 90.7(84.13–97.27) | 96.3(92.2–100) |
Emmerich et al | Reverse IgG ELISA | IFA | Serum | 643 | Laboratory | 100(99–100) | 99(98–100) |
Olschlager et al | GPC RT-PCR(Qiagen) | Virus isolation | Serum and CSF | 77 + (1CSF sample) | Laboratory | 100(99–100) |  |
Trappier et al | Conventional PCR | Virus Isolation | Serum | 195 | Laboratory | 66(55–77) | 78(69.5–84.5) |