Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Diagnostic Tests Versus Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) Across Major Infectious Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
4 affiliations
- 1Microbiology, Gautam Buddha Chikitsa Mahavidyalaya, Dr. K.K.B.M Subharti Hospital, Dehradun, IND
- 2Pharmacology, Gautam Buddha Chikitsa Mahavidyalaya, Dr. K.K.B.M Subharti Hospital, Dehradun, IND
- 3Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Guwahati, Guwahati, IND
- 4Microbiology, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Swami Rama Himalayan University, Dehradun, IND
Abstract
Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are increasingly used for point-of-care diagnosis of infectious diseases because of their rapid turnaround time and ease of use. However, their diagnostic performance compared with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) varies across diseases and assay platforms. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A total of 26 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, of which 13 datasets from 11 studies with complete 2 × 2 diagnostic data were included in the meta-analysis. Quality assessment was performed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2). Pooled diagnostic performance was summarized separately for each infection using extracted true-positive (TP), false-positive (FP), true-negative (TN), and false-negative (FN) values; forest plots, an HSROC (Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic model)-style summary visualization, and a Deeks-type funnel plot were generated. The aggregate diagnostic counts were TP = 1,304, FP = 68, TN = 24,301, and FN = 303. Overall, the included datasets showed consistently high specificity (≥96.97%), whereas sensitivity varied widely (25%-100%) across conditions. By target condition, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; 78.6%/99.30%), hepatitis B virus (HBV; 88.2%/99.94%), hepatitis C virus (HCV; 75.7%/99.42%), dengue (97.0%/99.97%), and malaria (100.0%/97.18%). RDTs demonstrated high specificity and good sensitivity compared with ELISA, supporting their role as rapid screening tools, particularly in resource-limited settings. However, heterogeneity across diseases and assay platforms limits generalizability, and confirmatory testing remains important in selected clinical and blood-screening settings.
Related
- Accuracy of diagnostic codes and algorithms used to identify connective tissue diseases in electronic health records and administrative databases: systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Research protocol for the diagnostic accuracy of intelligent portable impulse oscillometry across different respiratory diseases: a multicentre, cross-sectional study
- Relic of the Past or Clinical Compass? Re-Evaluating the Diagnostic Utility of Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (1H-MRS) in Encephalitis and Infectious CNS Diseases
- Global burden of enteric infectious diseases, diarrhoeal diseases, and corresponding aetiologies, 1990–2023: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2023
- Diagnostic accuracy of the appendicitis inflammatory response (AIR) score for acute appendicitis during pregnancy: A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis
BibTeX
@article{gupta2026diagnostic,
title = {{Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Diagnostic Tests Versus Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) Across Major Infectious Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis}},
author = {Priyanka Gupta and Saurabh Bijalwan and Deepjyoti Kalita and Garima Mittal},
journal = {Cureus},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.7759/cureus.117107},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13716983},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Diagnostic Tests Versus Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) Across Major Infectious Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
AU - Priyanka Gupta
AU - Saurabh Bijalwan
AU - Deepjyoti Kalita
AU - Garima Mittal
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/28
JO - Cureus
DO - 10.7759/cureus.117107
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13716983
AB - Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are increasingly used for point-of-care diagnosis of infectious diseases because of their rapid turnaround time and ease of use. However, their diagnostic performance compared with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) varies across diseases and assay platforms. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A total of 26 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, of which 13 datasets from 11 studies with complete 2 × 2 diagnostic data were included in the meta-analysis. Quality assessment was performed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2). Pooled diagnostic performance was summarized separately for each infection using extracted true-positive (TP), false-positive (FP), true-negative (TN), and false-negative (FN) values; forest plots, an HSROC (Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic model)-style summary visualization, and a Deeks-type funnel plot were generated. The aggregate diagnostic counts were TP = 1,304, FP = 68, TN = 24,301, and FN = 303. Overall, the included datasets showed consistently high specificity (≥96.97%), whereas sensitivity varied widely (25%-100%) across conditions. By target condition, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; 78.6%/99.30%), hepatitis B virus (HBV; 88.2%/99.94%), hepatitis C virus (HCV; 75.7%/99.42%), dengue (97.0%/99.97%), and malaria (100.0%/97.18%). RDTs demonstrated high specificity and good sensitivity compared with ELISA, supporting their role as rapid screening tools, particularly in resource-limited settings. However, heterogeneity across diseases and assay platforms limits generalizability, and confirmatory testing remains important in selected clinical and blood-screening settings.
SN - 2168-8184
ER -