IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0111727.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rapid Antigen Group A Streptococcus Test to Diagnose Pharyngitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Emily H Stewart
  • Brian Davis
  • B Lee Clemans-Taylor
  • Benjamin Littenberg
  • Carlos A Estrada
  • Robert M Centor

Abstract

Background: Pharyngitis management guidelines include estimates of the test characteristics of rapid antigen streptococcus tests (RAST) using a non-systematic approach. Objective: To examine the sensitivity and specificity, and sources of variability, of RAST for diagnosing group A streptococcal (GAS) pharyngitis. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Reviews, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Scopus, SciELO, CINAHL, guidelines, 2000–2012. Study Selection: Culture as reference standard, all languages. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Study characteristics, quality. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Sensitivity, specificity. Results: We included 59 studies encompassing 55,766 patients. Forty three studies (18,464 patients) fulfilled the higher quality definition (at least 50 patients, prospective data collection, and no significant biases) and 16 (35,634 patients) did not. For the higher quality immunochromatographic methods in children (10,325 patients), heterogeneity was high for sensitivity (inconsistency [I2] 88%) and specificity (I2 86%). For enzyme immunoassay in children (342 patients), the pooled sensitivity was 86% (95% CI, 79–92%) and the pooled specificity was 92% (95% CI, 88–95%). For the higher quality immunochromatographic methods in the adult population (1,216 patients), the pooled sensitivity was 91% (95% CI, 87 to 94%) and the pooled specificity was 93% (95% CI, 92 to 95%); however, heterogeneity was modest for sensitivity (I2 61%) and specificity (I2 72%). For enzyme immunoassay in the adult population (333 patients), the pooled sensitivity was 86% (95% CI, 81–91%) and the pooled specificity was 97% (95% CI, 96 to 99%); however, heterogeneity was high for sensitivity and specificity (both, I2 88%). Conclusions: RAST immunochromatographic methods appear to be very sensitive and highly specific to diagnose group A streptococcal pharyngitis among adults but not in children. We could not identify sources of variability among higher quality studies. The present systematic review provides the best evidence for the wide range of sensitivity included in current guidelines.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily H Stewart & Brian Davis & B Lee Clemans-Taylor & Benjamin Littenberg & Carlos A Estrada & Robert M Centor, 2014. "Rapid Antigen Group A Streptococcus Test to Diagnose Pharyngitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-1, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0111727
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111727
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111727
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111727&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0111727?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger M. Harbord & Penny Whiting, 2009. "metandi: Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical logistic regression," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 9(2), pages 211-229, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Garifallia Sakellariou & Carlo Alberto Scirè & Antonella Zambon & Roberto Caporali & Carlomaurizio Montecucco, 2013. "Performance of the 2010 Classification Criteria for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Literature Review and a Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-10, February.
    2. Amin Jan & Maran Marimuthu & Muhammad Kashif Shad & Haseeb ur-Rehman & Muhammad Zahid & Ahmad Ali Jan, 2019. "Bankruptcy profile of the Islamic and conventional banks in Malaysia: a post-crisis period analysis," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 67-87, February.
    3. Bruno Roza da Costa & Anne Wilhelmina Saskia Rutjes & Angelico Mendy & Rosalie Freund-Heritage & Edgar Ramos Vieira, 2012. "Can Falls Risk Prediction Tools Correctly Identify Fall-Prone Elderly Rehabilitation Inpatients? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-8, July.
    4. Samuel N. Frempong & Andrew J. Sutton & Clare Davenport & Pelham Barton, 2020. "Early Economic Evaluation to Identify the Necessary Test Characteristics of a New Typhoid Test to be Cost Effective in Ghana," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 143-157, March.
    5. Lütjens, Henk & Eisenbeiss, Maik & Fiedler, Maximilian & Bijmolt, Tammo, 2022. "Determinants of consumers’ attitudes towards digital advertising – A meta-analytic comparison across time and touchpoints," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 445-466.
    6. Lisa A Waddell & Judy Greig & Mariola Mascarenhas & Shannon Harding & Robbin Lindsay & Nicholas Ogden, 2016. "The Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests for Lyme Disease in Humans, A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of North American Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-23, December.
    7. Ian R. White, 2011. "Multivariate random-effects meta-regression: Updates to mvmeta," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 11(2), pages 255-270, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0111727. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.