Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2013;8(2):e54695.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054695. Epub 2013 Feb 26.

Are Treponema pallidum specific rapid and point-of-care tests for syphilis accurate enough for screening in resource limited settings? Evidence from a meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Are Treponema pallidum specific rapid and point-of-care tests for syphilis accurate enough for screening in resource limited settings? Evidence from a meta-analysis

Yalda Jafari et al. PLoS One. 2013.

Abstract

Background: Rapid and point-of-care (POC) tests for syphilis are an invaluable screening tool, yet inadequate evaluation of their diagnostic accuracy against best reference standards limits their widespread global uptake. To fill this gap, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of rapid and POC tests in blood and serum samples against Treponema pallidum (TP) specific reference standards.

Methods: Five electronic databases (1980-2012) were searched, data was extracted from 33 articles, and Bayesian hierarchical models were fit.

Results: In serum samples, against a TP specific reference standard point estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI) for the sensitivities of popular tests were: i) Determine, 90.04% (80.45, 95.21), ii) SD Bioline, 87.06% (75.67, 94.50), iii) VisiTect, 85.13% (72.83, 92.57), and iv) Syphicheck, 74.48% (56.85, 88.44), while specificities were: i) Syphicheck, 99.14% (96.37, 100), ii) Visitect, 96.45% (91.92, 99.29), iii) SD Bioline, 95.85% (89.89, 99.53), and iv) Determine, 94.15% (89.26, 97.66). In whole blood samples, sensitivities were: i) Determine, 86.32% (77.26, 91.70), ii) SD Bioline, 84.50% (78.81, 92.61), iii) Syphicheck, 74.47% (63.94, 82.13), and iv) VisiTect, 74.26% (53.62, 83.68), while specificities were: i) Syphicheck, 99.58% (98.91, 99.96), ii) VisiTect, 99.43% (98.22, 99.98), iii) SD Bioline, 97.95%(92.54, 99.33), and iv) Determine, 95.85% (92.42, 97.74).

Conclusions: Rapid and POC treponemal tests reported sensitivity and specificity estimates comparable to laboratory-based treponemal tests. In resource limited settings, where access to screening is limited and where risk of patients lost to follow up is high, the introduction of these tests has already been shown to improve access to screening and treatment to prevent stillbirths and neonatal mortality due to congenital syphilis. Based on the evidence, it is concluded that rapid and POC tests are useful in resource limited settings with poor access to laboratories or screening for syphilis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Study selection flow chart as per PRISMA guidelines.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stratification strategy employed to make subgroups for pooling.

References

    1. The Sexually Transmitted Diseases Diagnostics Initiative (2006) The use of Rapid Syphilis Tests. Geneva: TDR/WHO.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2007) CDC Fact Sheet: Syphilis & MSM. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC.
    1. Steinbrook R (2007) HIV in India–a complex epidemic. N Engl J Med 356: 1089–1093. - PubMed
    1. Herring A, Ballard R, Mabey D, Peeling RW (2006) Evaluation of rapid diagnostic tests: syphilis. Nat Rev Microbiol 4: S33–40. - PubMed
    1. Peeling RW, Mabey D, Herring A, Hook EW 3rd (2006) Why do we need quality-assured diagnostic tests for sexually transmitted infections? Nat Rev Microbiol 4: 909–921. - PubMed

Publication types