Commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay versus polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of chronic chagas disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, ISSN: 1678-8060, Vol: 111, Issue: 1, Page: 1-19
2016
- 25Citations
- 5,516Usage
- 85Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations25
- Citation Indexes25
- 25
- CrossRef16
- Usage5,516
- Full Text Views5,257
- 5,257
- Abstract Views259
- 259
- Captures85
- Readers85
- 85
Review Description
Chronic Chagas disease diagnosis relies on laboratory tests due to its clinical characteristics. The aim of this research was to review commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) diagnostic test performance. Performance of commercial ELISA or PCR for the diagnosis of chronic Chagas disease were systematically searched in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, ISI Web, and LILACS through the bibliography from 1980-2014 and by contact with the manufacturers. The risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2. Heterogeneity was estimated with the I2 statistic. Accuracies provided by the manufacturers usually overestimate the accuracy provided by academia. The risk of bias is high in most tests and in most QUADAS dimensions. Heterogeneity is high in either sensitivity, specificity, or both. The evidence regarding commercial ELISA and ELISA-rec sensitivity and specificity indicates that there is overestimation. The current recommendation to use two simultaneous serological tests can be supported by the risk of bias analysis and the amount of heterogeneity but not by the observed accuracies. The usefulness of PCR tests are debatable and health care providers should not order them on a routine basis. PCR may be used in selected cases due to its potential to detect seronegative subjects.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84954565906&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0074-02760150296; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26814640; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0074-02762016000100001&lng=en&tlng=en; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0074-02762016000100001&lng=en&tlng=en; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0074-02762016000100001; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0074-02762016000100001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0074-02760150296; https://www.scielo.br/j/mioc/a/4FjQpDBy4ZsSYx4qHK5chPh/?lang=en
FapUNIFESP (SciELO)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know