Study designs of evaluations included in the review
No inclusion criteria relating to the study design were specified. The included studies used either a diagnostic cohort or diagnostic case-control design.
Specific interventions included in the review
Studies that evaluated rapid (60 minutes or less) point of care immunochromatographic tests (ICTs) for the detection of dengue virus immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies were eligible for inclusion. Assays limited to the detection of IgG and assays taking longer than 60 minutes to perform were excluded. The studies had to include sufficient study samples (unclear what was considered sufficient) and a complete description of the samples so that the timing of sample collection could be determined. All included studies evaluated the PanBio ICT.
Reference standard test against which the new test was compared
Studies that used an inappropriate reference standard, including in-house' assays for which the diagnostic accuracy had not been previously established, were excluded. Studies in which not all of the study samples received the reference standard, or which used multiple reference assays, were excluded. The reference standards used in the included studies were Panbio Duo ELISA, Panbio IgM ELISA, MRL IgM ELISA, AFRIMS MAC-ELISA and HAI.
Participants included in the review
Studies that evaluated individuals with dengue fever, dengue shock syndrome or dengue haemorrhagic fever upon hospital admission or during the acute phase of infection were eligible for inclusion. Studies that included an inappropriate study population, such as only individuals undergoing convalescence, were excluded. Studies of samples obtained from South-East Asia, India and the Americas were conducted. Studies included patients with both early and late acute infection; none of the studies described the severity of infection.
Outcomes assessed in the review
Studies with errors or inconsistencies in the published study data or that barred indeterminate results were excluded. The outcomes reported in the review were the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios.
How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made?
Abstracts of identified studies were printed and full-text articles of potentially relevant studies were obtained. It was unclear how many reviewers assessed studies for relevance.