Study design
This study has systematically searched all the studies related to diagnostic performance of DAT during 2004-2019.
Selection was made independently by two reviewers (SSH and AB) and discrepancies were solved by consensus after discussion.
This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted as per PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines (11).
Search strategy
Electronic databases, including MEDLINE (via PubMed), SCOPUS, Web of Science and two Persian scientific search engines “Scientific Information Database" (www.sid.ir) and "Mag Iran" (www.magiran.com) were searched systematically with various combinations of the following scientific keywords: “Visceral leishmaniasis”, ‘‘Leishmania infantum”, ‘‘Leishmania donovani” “DAT”, ‘‘Direct Agglutination Test”, ‘‘Parasitology”, “Microscopy”, ‘‘Specificity” and ‘‘Sensitivity” using ‘‘OR” and/or ‘‘AND”. The reference lists of selected articles were also screened manually for possibly relevant articles. Abstracts of articles which published in congresses were not explored.
Case definition
Patients in VL-endemic countries with pathogonomonic signs and symtomes such as fever >2 weeks, hepatosplenomegaly, progress weakness, anaemia or pancytopenia , and lymphadenopathy with confirmation of following testsparticularly in VL endemic areas were considered as VL cases.
1-Parasitological diagnosis
(a)
Microscopic examination of bone marrow aspirate, lymph node aspirate, and/or spleen aspirate using direct semi-quantified microscopic examination of Giemsa-stained smears for detection of amastigote form of Leishmania spp.
(b)
Culture of bone marrow, lymph node, and/or spleen aspirations in Novy–MacNeal–Nicolle (NNN) culture media. Demonstration of at least one amastigote upon microscopic examination of tissue smears or one promastigote in culture is sufficient for the diagnosis.
2- Serological tests
DAT was performed on each sample in standardized conditions, and each test was read by two readers who were blind to other test results.
Study selection and data extraction
Titles and abstracts of all articles were screened by one reviewer, and eligibility of the screened articles was assessed by two independent investigators using the following criteria.
Inclusion criteria were: a) have a full description of accuracy of DAT as a diagnostic test for the detection of VL in patients. b) Articles were published from December 2004 to April 2019. c) include both DAT test and parasitological examinations (direct demonstration,culture) as the confirmatory diagnostic method for VL. c) Cases with no previous history of VL were included.
Exclusion criteria were: a) insufficient primary and/or secondary data information of (lack information about sensitivity and specificity), b) unavailable full text article, and c) written in a language other than English or Persian.
Eligibility of all explored papers was assessed by three reviewers. The discrepancies among studies were obviated by discussion and consensus. Afterward, data of interest were gathered using a pre-designed data extraction form containing all the descriptive variables and test results. The following information was extracted: authors, year and country in which the study was carried out, diagnostic methods applied, reference test used, cut off, characteristics of the participants, quality of the study and sample size.
Assessment of Study Quality
We assessed the quality of studies using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy Approach-QUADAS (12).
Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysis
All meta-analysis methods were performed using STATA (Release 12. statistical software. College Station, Texas: STATA Corp LP). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated when available data were presented. To calculate sensitivity and specificity values for the tests, we cross-tabulated each result against the reference standard. Whenever possible, we extracted raw data from primary studies to fill in the four cell values of a diagnostic 2×2 table: true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives.
In many articles the numbers of true positive, false negative, true negative, and false positive observations were available. If not, we derived the numbers from the marginal totals and the reported sensitivity and specificity.
Meta-analyses were accomplished by using random-effects inverse-variance weights. Results of the meta-analysis were illustrated by a forest plot diagram, which demonstrated the accuracy estimates and their relevant 95% confidence interval (CI).
The Cochran’s Q and I2 statistics were used for assessment of the between-study inconsistency and heterogeneity, respectively. The I2 values of 25%, 50%, and 75% were representatives of low, moderate and high heterogeneity, respectively. Publication bias was evaluated through the Deeks’ funnel plots (13).