↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic accuracy of detection and quantification of HBV-DNA and HCV-RNA using dried blood spot (DBS) samples – a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic accuracy of detection and quantification of HBV-DNA and HCV-RNA using dried blood spot (DBS) samples – a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2776-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Berit Lange, Teri Roberts, Jennifer Cohn, Jamie Greenman, Johannes Camp, Azumi Ishizaki, Luke Messac, Edouard Tuaillon, Philippe van de Perre, Christine Pichler, Claudia M. Denkinger, Philippa Easterbrook

Abstract

The detection and quantification of hepatitis B (HBV) DNA and hepatitis C (HCV) RNA in whole blood collected on dried blood spots (DBS) may facilitate access to diagnosis and treatment of HBV and HCV infection in resource-poor settings. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of DBS compared to venous blood samples for detection and quantification of HBV-DNA and HCV-RNA in two systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of HBV DNA and HCV RNA from DBS compared to venous blood samples. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Web of Science, LILAC and Cochrane library for studies that assessed diagnostic accuracy with DBS. Heterogeneity was assessed and where appropriate pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated using bivariate analyses with maximum likelihood estimates and 95% confidence intervals. We also conducted a narrative review on the impact of varying storage conditions or different cut-offs for detection from studies that undertook this in a subset of samples. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess risk of bias. In the quantitative synthesis for diagnostic accuracy of HBV-DNA using DBS, 521 citations were identified, and 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall quality of studies was rated as low. The pooled estimate of sensitivity and specificity for HBV-DNA was 95% (95% CI: 83-99) and 99% (95% CI: 53-100), respectively. In the two studies that reported on cut-offs and limit of detection (LoD) - one reported a sensitivity of 98% for a cut-off of ≥2000 IU/ml and another reported a LoD of 914 IU/ml using a commercial assay. Varying storage conditions for individual samples did not result in a significant variation of results. In the synthesis for diagnostic accuracy of HCV-RNA using DBS, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria, and this included six additional studies to a previously published review. The pooled sensitivity and specificity was 98% (95% CI:95-99) and 98% (95% CI:95-99.0), respectively. Varying storage conditions resulted in a decrease in accuracy for quantification but not for reported positivity. These findings show a high level of diagnostic performance for the use of DBS for HBV-DNA and HCV-RNA detection. However, this was based on a limited number and quality of studies. There is a need for development of standardized protocols by manufacturers on the use of DBS with their assays, as well as for larger studies on use of DBS conducted in different settings and with varying storage conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 34 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 26%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 40 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,367,260
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,831
of 7,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,764
of 329,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#73
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.