Figure 1.
Flowchart of the steps performed in the meta-analysis.
Table 1.
Summary of the included studies.
Figure 2.
The assessment of methodological quality items shown for all included studies.
Proportions of studies rated as “yes”, “no”, or “unclear” for each QUADAS item.
Figure 3.
HSROC plot displaying diagnostic accuracy results of included studies.
Panbio (A) and Platelia (B) kits. The circle diameter (study estimate) is proportional to the weight given to each study. Summary sensitivity and specificity is marked by a red square.
Figure 4.
Forest plot of the sensitivity of Platelia kit.
Forest plot of the sensitivity of each study and pooled sensitivity for studies that distinguished clinical features of patients infected with DENV into DF (A) and DHF (B). The sensitivity is represented by the circles in squares and the horizontal lines represent the point estimate (95% CI for each included study). Diamonds represent the pooled estimate (95% CI).
Figure 5.
Fagan's nomogram for the calculation of post-test probabilities.
A pre-test probability of 37% for dengue disease was fixed, which was estimated by the number of symptomatic cases in selected studies. (A) Panbio had a post-test probability of 98%. For Platelia kits (B) post-test probability was 99%, ie, with an estimated prevalence of 37%, if this patient tests positive, the post-test probability that she truly has dengue would be 99% (solid line in red). On the other hand, if patient tests negative, the post-test probability that she truly has dengue would be 17% (A) or 13% (B) (blue dotted line). The results were obtained by the following calculations: pretest odds = prevalence/1-prevalence; post-test odds = pretest odds x LR- (LR+); post-test probability = post-test odds/1+post-test odds. LR, likelihood ratio.