Jasmine Almeria1, Joshua Pham1, Keely S Paris1, Karen M Heskett2, Irvin Romyco3, Claire C Bristow4. 1. From the Department of Family Medicine and Public Health. 2. The Library, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA. 3. FHI 360, Jakarta, Indonesia. 4. Division of Infectious Diseases and Global Public Health, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pooled testing for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) may be a cost-saving solution to increase screening by simplifying testing procedures and reducing resource burdens. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the performance of pooled 3-anatomic-site testing (pharyngeal, rectal, and urogenital sites) for CT and NG in comparison with single-anatomic-site testing. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify original evaluation studies of the performance of pooled testing for CT and NG infections and identified 14 studies for inclusion. Each study was systematically evaluated for bias. We conducted bivariate fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses using a full Bayesian method of the positive percent agreement and negative percent agreement. RESULTS: The combined positive percent agreement for CT was 93.11% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.51%-94.55%), and the negative percent agreement was 99.44% (95% CI, 99.18%-99.65%). For NG, the combined positive percent agreement was 93.80% (95% CI, 90.26%-96.61%), and the negative percent agreement was 99.73% (95% CI, 99.30%-99.97%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that pooled 3-anatomic-site tests performed similarly to single-anatomic-site tests for the detection of CT and NG. The pooled 3-anatomic-site tests have the added potential benefit of reduced cost and resource requirement, which could lead to improved testing access and screening uptake.
BACKGROUND: Pooled testing for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) may be a cost-saving solution to increase screening by simplifying testing procedures and reducing resource burdens. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the performance of pooled 3-anatomic-site testing (pharyngeal, rectal, and urogenital sites) for CT and NG in comparison with single-anatomic-site testing. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify original evaluation studies of the performance of pooled testing for CT and NG infections and identified 14 studies for inclusion. Each study was systematically evaluated for bias. We conducted bivariate fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses using a full Bayesian method of the positive percent agreement and negative percent agreement. RESULTS: The combined positive percent agreement for CT was 93.11% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.51%-94.55%), and the negative percent agreement was 99.44% (95% CI, 99.18%-99.65%). For NG, the combined positive percent agreement was 93.80% (95% CI, 90.26%-96.61%), and the negative percent agreement was 99.73% (95% CI, 99.30%-99.97%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that pooled 3-anatomic-site tests performed similarly to single-anatomic-site tests for the detection of CT and NG. The pooled 3-anatomic-site tests have the added potential benefit of reduced cost and resource requirement, which could lead to improved testing access and screening uptake.
Authors: Duygu Durukan; Tim R H Read; Catriona S Bradshaw; Christopher K Fairley; Deborah A Williamson; Vesna De Petra; Kate Maddaford; Rebecca Wigan; Marcus Y Chen; Anne Tran; Eric P F Chow Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: B Sultan; J A White; R Fish; G Carrick; N Brima; A Copas; A Robinson; R Gilson; D Mercey; P Benn Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Steven G Badman; Sara F E Bell; Judith A Dean; Jime Lemoire; Luke Coffey; Joseph Debattista; Andrew M Redmond; Owain D Williams; Charles F Gilks; David M Whiley Journal: Sex Health Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 2.706
Authors: Carole Lunny; Darlene Taylor; Linda Hoang; Tom Wong; Mark Gilbert; Richard Lester; Mel Krajden; Gina Ogilvie Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-13 Impact factor: 3.240