Table 4.
Summary of evaluation performed using LDBIO Toxoplasma ICT IgG-IgM test
| Study | Published? | Sample | Npos | Nneg | Se | Sp | Comparative method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Black variant validation | No | Serum | 483 | 291 | 98.5% | 99.7% | CRS |
| El Mansouri, 2021 | Yes | Whole blood | 226 | 406 | 97% | 100% | CRS |
| Bichat/Chicagoa | Ongoing | Serum | 169 | 1215 | 98.2%a | 99.8%a | CRS |
| Chapey, 2016b | Yes | Serum | 109 | 291 | 97% | 96% | Architect |
| Mahinc, 2017b | Yes | Serum | 339 | 663 | 100% | 98.7% | CRS |
| Begeman, 2017b | Yes | Serum | 129 | 51 | 100% | 100% | CRS |
| Lykins, 2018 | Yes | Whole Blood | 101 | 143 | 100% | 100% | CRS |
| University of Chicago | No | Whole Blood | 5 | 35 | 100% | 100% | Bioplex ToRC |
| Gomez, 2018c | Yes | Serum | 170 | 140 | 100%c | 98.8%c | CRSc |
aAs the study is still under redaction, published performances may differ
bFormer pink variant CRS: composite reference standard, using more than a single test to determine status. See methodology of each study for details concerning the CRS used
cincluding CDC100 panel (100% Se/Sp)
Abbreviations: N number, pos presence of T.gondii specific antibody, neg absence of antibody to T.gondii, Se sensitivity, Sp specificity