Table 2. Summary of findings of the review of immunochromatographic RDTs for the diagnosis of chronic CD in at risk populations.
| Interpretative criteria: Endemicity / Stat-Pak | Effect (95% CI) | # of studies | Mean Prevalencea (95% CI) | What do these results mean? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All areas |
Sensitivity: 96.60% (91.3–98.7); Specificity: 99.27% (98.4–99.7) |
12 | 30.33% (18.6 to 42.0) | Of the 30 out of 100 patients with CD, 1 will be missed by a single RDT (3.40% of 30). Of the other 67, not even 1 will have a false positive result of the RDT. |
| Endemic areas |
Sensitivity: 98.07% (91.6–99.6); Specificity: 99.30% (98.3–99.7) |
8 | 35.93% (20.7 to 51.1) | Of the 36 out of 100 patients with CD, not even 1 will be missed by a single RDT (1.93% of 33). Of the other 64, not even 1 will have a false positive result of the RDT. |
| Non-Endemic areas |
Sensitivity: 89.77% (79.7–95.1); Specificity: 98.52% (95.0–99.5) |
4 | 19.14% (4.3 to 42.6) | Of the 19 out of 100 patients with CD, 2 will be missed by a single RDT (10.23% of 19). Of the other 81, 1 will have a false positive result of the RDT. |
| Stat-Pak tests only |
Sensitivity: 97.02% (87.6–99.3); Specificity: 99.44% (98.6–99.8) |
4 | 26.37% (2.9 to 49.8) | Of the 26 out of 100 patients with CD, not even 1 will be missed by a single Stat-Pak test (2.98% of 26). Of the other 74, not even 1 will have a false positive result of the Stat-Pak test. |
a Estimates of true prevalences for each study were calculated as described by Rogan and Gladen (1978) [ref.]. CI: confidence interval; RDT: Rapid Diagnostic Test; CD: Chagas disease.