4.2 Article

Diagnostic reliability of an immunochromatographic test for Chagas disease screening at a primary health care centre in a rural endemic area

期刊

MEMORIAS DO INSTITUTO OSWALDO CRUZ
卷 109, 期 8, 页码 984-988

出版社

FUNDACO OSWALDO CRUZ
DOI: 10.1590/0074-0276140153

关键词

Chagas disease; serological test; immunochromatographic assay

资金

  1. CAI+D/UNL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many patients with Chagas disease live in remote communities that lack both equipment and trained personnel to perform a diagnosis by conventional serology (CS). Thus, reliable tests suitable for use under difficult conditions are required. In this study, we evaluated the ability of personnel with and without laboratory skills to perform immunochromatographic (IC) tests to detect Chagas disease at a primary health care centre (PHCC). We examined whole blood samples from 241 patients and serum samples from 238 patients. Then, we calculated the percentage of overall agreement (POA) between the two groups of operators for the sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp) and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of IC tests compared to CS tests. We also evaluated the level of agreement between ELISAs and indirect haemagglutination (IHA) tests. The readings of the IC test results showed 100% agreement (POA = 1). The IC test on whole blood showed the following values: S = 87.3%; Sp = 98.8%; PPV = 96.9% and NPV = 95.9%. Additionally, the IC test on serum displayed the following results: S = 95.7%; Sp = 100%; PPV = 100% and NPV = 98.2%. Using whole blood, the agreement with ELISA was 96.3% and the agreement with IHA was 94.1%. Using serum, the agreement with ELISA was 97.8% and the agreement with IHA was 96.6%. The IC test performance with serum samples was excellent and demonstrated its usefulness in a PHCC with minimal equipment. If the IC test S value and NPV with whole blood are improved, then this test could also be used in areas lacking laboratories or specialised personnel.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据