Ann Clin Microbiol 2021;24:31-43. Safety and Effectiveness of Cytomegalovirus Specific Antigen Induced Interferon-Gamma ELISPOT/ELISA: A Systematic Review
| Study | F/U | Peptide/Cut-off | Odds ratio/Hazard ratio | Diagnostic accuracy | Level of evidence | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95% CI | P-value | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | |||||
| Prediction of prognosis | ||||||||
| Fernandez-Ruiz (2020)*[26] | 12 M | < 0.1 | – | – | 0.83 (0.70 – 0.92) | 0.34 (0.19 – 0.52) | 2+ | |
| < 0.2 | – | – | 0.77 (0.64 – 0.88) | 0.34 (0.19 – 0.52) | 2+ | |||
| Gabanti (2018)*[27] | 6 M | < 0.2 | – | – | 0.85 | 0.63 | 2+ | |
| Paouri (2018)†,‡[29] | 12 M | < 0.2 | – | – | 0.45 | 1.00 | 2+ | |
| Banas (2017)*[11] | NR | < 0.2 | – | – | 0.73 (0.64 – 0.78) | 0.87 (0.78 – 0.94) | 2+ | |
| Kwon (2017)*[16] | 6 M | < 0.2 | – | – | 0.60 (0.30 – 0.85) | 0.60 (0.51 – 0.66) | 2+ | |
| Yong (2017)*[24] | 12 M | < 0.1 | – | – | 0.86 | 1.00 | 2+ | |
| < 0.2 | – | – | 0.74 | 1.00 | 2+ | |||
| Sood (2015)§[30] | 2 W | < 0.1 | HR 6.9 | 0.00 | 0.42 (0.25 – 0.51) | 0.89 (0.73 – 0.98) | 2+ | |
| < 0.2 | HR 2.8 | 0.01 | 0.74 (0.56 – 0.88) | 0.53 (0.35 – 0.67) | 2+ | |||
| Cantisan (2013)∥[25] | 6 M | < 0.2 | OR 10.18 (2.07 – 50.13) | 0.00 | 2+ | |||
| OR 10.49 (1.88 – 58.46) | 0.00 | |||||||
| Manuel (2013)†, ‡[28] | At prophylaxis | < 0.2 | – | – | 0.14 (0.08 – 0.23) | 0.96 (0.81 – 0.99) | 2+ | |
| Decision of treatment | ||||||||
| Deborska-Materkowska (2018)*[1] | 12 M | < 0.2 | OR 4.2 (1.1 – 15.6) | 0.03 | – | – | 2+ | |
| Sood (2018)*[31] | 6 M | < 0.1 | – | – | 1.00 (0.29 – 1.00) | 0.89 (0.78 – 0.96) | 2+ | |
| Manuel (2013)*[28] | Postpro-phylaxis | < 0.2 | – | – | 0.30 (0.21 – 0.40) | 0.93 (0.76 – 0.99) | 2+ | |
*predict viremia; †predict duplication; ‡predict reactivation; §predict infection; ∥predict disease. Abbreviations: ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; F/U, follow up; CI, confidence interval; M, month; NR, not reported; W, week; HR, hazard ratio; OR, odds ratio.