| Literature DB >> 36250095 |
Tania T Herrera1,2, Idalina Cubilla-Batista2,3, Amador Goodridge2, Tiago V Pereira4.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of prenatal imaging for the diagnosis of congenital Zika syndrome. Data sources: Medline (via Pubmed), PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from inception to March 2022. Two researchers independently screened study titles and abstracts for eligibility. Study eligibility criteria: Observational studies with Zika virus-infected pregnant women were included. The index tests included ultrasound and/or magnetic resonance imaging. The reference standard included (1) Zika infection-related perinatal death, stillbirth, and neonatal death within the first 48 h of birth, (2) neonatal intensive care unit admission, and (3) clinically defined adverse perinatal outcomes. Synthesis methods: We extracted 2 × 2 contingency tables. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using the random-effects bivariate model and assessed the summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS 2 tool. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated with grading of recommendations.Entities:
Keywords: ZIKV; Zika virus infection; congenital Zika syndrome (CZS); microcephaly; neurosonology; pregnancy; ventriculomegaly
Year: 2022 PMID: 36250095 PMCID: PMC9556817 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.962765
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
FIGURE 1Flowchart summarizing inclusion in systematic review of studies. *Consider, if feasible to do so, reporting the number of records identified from each database or register searched (rather than the total number across all databases/registers). **If automation tools were used, indicate how many records were excluded by a human and how many were excluded by automation tools. From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/.
Main characteristics of the included studies.
| Author and reference | N | Country and setting | Study design | Definition of suspected Zika virus infection | Imaging test | Reference standard | Conflict of interest | Exclusion criteria |
| Besnard ( | 19 | French Polynesia | Retrospective | Symptoms of Zika during outbreak | US/Pre and Post | Postnatal anomalies | None declared | Toxoplasmosis, chromosomal abnormalities, hepatitis, rubella, syphilis |
| Rodó ( | 72 | Spain | Prospective | Pregnant women that traveled to any of the endemic countries 8 weeks before her last menstrual period or during pregnancy; or pregnant women with sexual intercourse with partner that had traveled to any of the vectoral endemic countries in the past 6 months. | US/MRI | Newborns with clinical/radiological findings consistent of CZS | None declared | Amniocentesis: |
| Schaub ( | 14 | Martinique | Retrospective case series | Confirmed Zika virus fetal infection | US | Congenital brain abnormalities | None declared | • Chromosomal abnormalities |
| Sohan ( | 100 | Trinidad y Tobago | Case series | Symptoms of Zika and | US | Examination at birth | None declared | RT PCR Dengue and Chikungunya |
| Mulkey ( | 82 | Barranquilla, Colombia and (80) | Prospective | Pregnant women with symptoms meeting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention clinical criteria for probable ZIKV infection, with or without confirmatory laboratory testing | US/MRI | Postnatal anomalies and examination | None declared | No |
| Sanz- Cortes ( | 214 | Colombia | Prospective | Suspected Zika symptoms or their partners | US/MRI | Postnatal anomalies and Examination | None declared | TORCH, chromosomal abnormalities |
| Pomar ( | 301 | French Guiana | Prospective | Pregnant women with positive IgM ZikZIKV RNA amplification and/or serology | US | “Pregnancy outcome” | None declared | TORCH PCR, karyotype and CGH array. Hematologic and biochemical screening at birth |
| Sarno ( | 52 | Salvador, Bahia | Prospective | Pregnant women with symptoms in endemic setting | US | Postnatal anomalies | None declared | TORCH and chromosomal abnormalities |
| Pereira ( | 182 | Rio de Janeiro, | Prospective | Women with a positive result for Zika virus confirmed by serum or urine reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) who underwent at least one prenatal ultrasonography session after infection and had known neonatal outcomes | US | Composite adverse neonatal outcome defined as perinatal death (stillbirth or death within 28 days of life), an abnormal finding on neonatal examination or an abnormal finding on postnatal neuroimaging | Grant Reproductive Scientist | Serologic or molecular testing for dengue, chikungunya, Parvovirus, CMV, measles, syphilis, HIV. |
| Melo ( | 11 | Brazil | Prospective | Mothers with symptoms of ZIKV infection and with fetus with some brain abnormalities. | US/MRI | Postnatal neuroimaging | None declared | Diabetes and Chronic Hypertension were excluded in the mothers, and drug use, alcohol consumption, smoking, medication. |
| Nogueira ( | 216 | São, Paulo | Prospective | Mothers with Zika symptoms identified by the city public health authority | US/MRI | Adverse birth outcomes | São Paulo Research Foundation | Toxo, HIV, rubella, cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex, syphilis (TORCHS) |
| Pires ( | 8 | Brazil | Retrospective of prospectively case series data | Mothers with presumed or confirmed Zika virus infection according to Brazilian Ministry Health guidelines | US/MRI | Brain abnormalities | None declared | TORCH and dengue virus serology, genetic abnormalities, primary microcephaly, and teratogens. |
| Carvalho ( | 22 | Brazil | Retrospective | Diagnosis of fetal microcephaly or definite or highly probable diagnosis of maternal infection following classification recommended by the Brazilian Ministry of Health | US/MRI | Postnatal anomalies US and MRI and CAT | None declared | TORCH +, chromosomal abnormalities, syndromic microcephaly, teratogens |
| Walker et al. ( | 56 | Columbia University Medical Center | retrospective | Pregnant women with recent ZIKV infection. | US | femur sparring pattern of intrauterine growth restriction. | None declared | No |
| Gutiérrez-Sánchez et al. ( | 209 | Santader | prospective | Pregnant women were tested with RT- PCR to confirm or reject the diagnosis of ZIKV infection were included in the final analyses. | US | Brain abnormalities | Colciencias | Almost in 42% of patients they could not exclude other abnormalities. |
| Walker et al. ( | 95 | Tertiary care center in Miami Florida United States | retrospective | Pregnant women were screened for possible ZIKV exposure. ZIKV RNA + in maternal, fetal, neonatal. | US | abnormal fetal growth trajectory using fetal indices (HC/FL ratio) | None | Preterm delivery 14% |
| Marbán-Castro et al. ( | 195 | Spain | Prospective and multicentric | Pregnant women that traveled endemic area or partner that travel. ZIKV RT PCR, IgG, IgM Zika antibodies | US | Adverse perinatal outcome | “Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa 2019–2023” Program (CEX2018-000806-S), and support from the Generalitat de Catalunya through the CERCA Program. | Antibodies against Dengue and CHIKV |
| Coutinho ( | 511 | Ribeirão Preto | Prospective population cohort study | Pregnant women were tested with RT- PCR in blood, urine, amniotic fluid or fetoplacental tissue to confirm diagnosis of ZIKV infection | US | Adverse perinatal outcome: | Fundac̨ão de Apoio ao Ensino Pesquisa e Assistência do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto e | Prenatal routine maternal testing was performed for toxoplasmosis, hepatitis B and C, human immunodeficiency virus, and syphilis. |
CAT, computerized axial tomography; CGH, comparative genomic hybridization; CMV, cytomegalovirus; CZS, congenital Zika syndrome; RT-PCR, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; US, ultrasound.
FIGURE 2QUADAS 2 risk of bias and applicability of concerns.
FIGURE 3Forest plots for sensitivity and specificity. Results are based on the random-effects model. 95% CI denotes 95% confidence interval. The positive likelihood ratio was 24.9 (95% CI 2.11–293.2), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.19 (95% CI 0.02–2.05).
FIGURE 4Funnel plot with Deek’s regression line [predicted diagnostic odds ratio (DOR)]. ESS denotes effective sample size. Deek’s test (p = 0.33).
FIGURE 5Hierarchical summary receiver operating curve (HSROC). The size of the circles is proportional to the number of participants in each study. The 95% confidence region represents the uncertainty around the summary point. The 95% prediction region represents the uncertainty regarding the estimate to be obtained in a new, well-conducted study—given the observed data (i.e., current levels of statistical heterogeneity).
Summary of the main findings.
| Test results | Number of results per 1,000 patients evaluated (95% CI) | Number of participants | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | ||
|
| |||||
| Prevalence 2% | Prevalence 5% | Prevalencia 15% | |||
|
| 168 | ⊕○○○ | |||
|
| |||||
|
| 595 | ⊕○○○ | |||
|
| |||||
CI, confidence interval.
aRisk of bias: We downgraded the evidence by one level because of the overall high risk of bias. One study had a high risk of bias in all domains (38). Two studies had an unclear risk of bias in patient selection (36, 39). One study had unclear risk of bias for the reference standard (41). Two studies had unclear risk of bias for flow and timing (39, 34). Only one study had low risk of bias in all domains (4).
bInconsistency: We downgraded the evidence by one level because of statistical heterogeneity.
bImprecision: We downgraded the evidence by two levels, because the confidence interval was wide, and included clinically irrelevant diagnostic accuracy estimates.
cPublication bias: We did not downgrade the evidence for this criterion, since only 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis.