Multiplexed rapid technologies for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review

Angela Karellis, Faheel Naeem, Suma Nair, Sneha D. Mallya, Jean Pierre Routy, Jacqueline Gahagan, Cédric P. Yansouni, John Kim, Nitika Pant Pai

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Multiplexed technologies for sexually transmitted infections offer a convenient diagnostics option to screen, confirm, and treat multiple pathogens simultaneously. Due to scarce published real-world diagnostic performance data, we did a systematic review. Two reviewers searched major databases for data published between Jan 1, 2009, and April 20, 2020, and abstracted and analysed sensitivity and specificity data from 24 studies, which assessed 17 multiplex rapid nucleic acid amplification test platforms and seven multiplex immunochromatographic devices. Overall, these studies evaluated 19 sexually transmitted infections in 26 126 individuals. High sensitivity and specificity were shown for rapid nucleic acid amplification platform tests and immunochromatographic devices, with performance varying by pathogen, device, seropositivity, and subpopulation screened. As most devices yielded more than 95% sensitivity and specificity, immunochromatographic tests and rapid nucleic acid amplification test platforms can be advised for screening and confirmatory use. These highly accurate devices are appropriate for integrated, rapid screening initiatives for sexually transmitted infections to screen and treat many of these infections simultaneously, for antimicrobial stewardship, and for disease elimination programmes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e303-e315
JournalThe Lancet Microbe
Volume3
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 04-2022

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Infectious Diseases
  • Microbiology (medical)
  • Microbiology
  • Virology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Multiplexed rapid technologies for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this