» Articles » PMID: 32593318

Clinical and Epidemiological Performance of WHO Ebola Case Definitions: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview
Date 2020 Jun 29
PMID 32593318
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Ebola virus disease case definition is a crucial surveillance tool to detect suspected cases for referral and as a screening tool for clinicians to support admission and laboratory testing decisions at Ebola health facilities. We aimed to assess the performance of the WHO Ebola virus disease case definitions and other screening scores.

Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published in English between June 13, 1978, and Jan 14, 2020. We included studies that estimated the sensitivity and specificity of WHO Ebola virus disease case definitions, clinical and epidemiological characteristics (symptoms at admission and contact history), and predictive risk scores against the reference standard (laboratory-confirmed Ebola virus disease). Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated using bivariate and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (when four or more studies provided data) or random-effects meta-analysis (fewer than four studies provided data).

Findings: We identified 2493 publications, of which 14 studies from four countries (Sierra Leone, Guinea, Liberia, and Angola) were included in the analysis. 12 021 people with suspected disease were included, of whom 4874 were confirmed as positive for Ebola virus infection. Six studies explored the performance of WHO case definitions in non-paediatric populations, and in all of these studies, suspected and probable cases were combined and could not be disaggregated for analysis. The pooled sensitivity of the WHO Ebola virus disease case definitions from these studies was 81·5% (95% CI 74·1-87·2) and pooled specificity was 35·7% (28·5-43·6). History of contact or epidemiological link was a key predictor for the WHO case definitions (seven studies) and for risk scores (six studies). The most sensitive symptom was intense fatigue (79·0% [95% CI 74·4-83·0]), assessed in seven studies, and the least sensitive symptom was pain behind the eyes (1·0% [0·0-7·0]), assessed in three studies. The performance of fever as a symptom varied depending on the cutoff used to define fever.

Interpretation: WHO Ebola virus disease case definitions perform suboptimally to identify cases at both community level and during triage at Ebola health facilities. Inclusion of intense fatigue as a key symptom and contact history could improve the performance of case definitions, but implementation of these changes will require effective collaboration with, and trust of, affected communities.

Funding: Médecins sans Frontières.

Citing Articles

Rapid Decision Algorithm for Patient Triage during Ebola Outbreaks.

Ardiet D, Nsio J, Komanda G, Coulborn R, Grellety E, Grandesso F Emerg Infect Dis. 2024; 30(11):1-11.

PMID: 39447210 PMC: 11521189. DOI: 10.3201/eid3011.231650.


Development of a clinical prediction score for Ebola virus disease screening at triage centers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Yango J, Tshomba A, Kwete P, Madinga J, Mulangu S, Mbala-Kingebeni P PLOS Glob Public Health. 2024; 4(8):e0003583.

PMID: 39186506 PMC: 11346649. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003583.


Methodological issues of retrospective surveys for measuring mortality of highly clustered diseases: case study of the 2014-16 Ebola outbreak in Bo District, Sierra Leone.

Caleo G, Lokuge K, Kardamanidis K, Greig J, Belava J, Kilbride E Glob Health Action. 2024; 17(1):2331291.

PMID: 38666727 PMC: 11057552. DOI: 10.1080/16549716.2024.2331291.


Cost-effectiveness of incorporating Ebola prediction score tools and rapid diagnostic tests into a screening algorithm: A decision analytic model.

Tshomba A, Mukadi-Bamuleka D, De Weggheleire A, Tshiani O, Kayembe C, Mbala-Kingebeni P PLoS One. 2023; 18(10):e0293077.

PMID: 37847703 PMC: 10581462. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293077.


Strengthening community-based surveillance: lessons learned from the 2018-2020 Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Ebola outbreak.

OKeeffe J, Takahashi E, Otshudiema J, Malembi E, Ndaliko C, Munihire N Confl Health. 2023; 17(1):41.

PMID: 37649068 PMC: 10466702. DOI: 10.1186/s13031-023-00536-7.


References
1.
Kunkel A, Keita M, Diallo B, le Polain de Waroux O, Subissi L, Wague B . Assessment of a health facility based active case finding system for Ebola virus disease in Mbandaka, Democratic Republic of the Congo, June-July 2018. BMC Infect Dis. 2019; 19(1):981. PMC: 6873572. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-019-4600-4. View

2.
Vogt F, Fitzpatrick G, Patten G, Van den Bergh R, Stinson K, Pandolfi L . Assessment of the MSF triage system, separating patients into different wards pending Ebola virus laboratory confirmation, Kailahun, Sierra Leone, July to September 2014. Euro Surveill. 2016; 20(50). DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2015.20.50.30097. View

3.
Fitzgerald F, Wing K, Naveed A, Gbessay M, Ross J, Checchi F . Development of a Pediatric Ebola Predictive Score, Sierra Leone. Emerg Infect Dis. 2018; 24(2):311-319. PMC: 5782873. DOI: 10.3201/eid2402.171018. View

4.
Ansari A . Clinical features and pathobiology of Ebolavirus infection. J Autoimmun. 2014; 55:1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaut.2014.09.001. View

5.
Malvy D, McElroy A, de Clerck H, Gunther S, van Griensven J . Ebola virus disease. Lancet. 2019; 393(10174):936-948. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33132-5. View