The diagnostic Accuracy of Visual versus automated dipstick proteinuria testing in Pregnancy: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care (POC) tests for detecting proteinuria in pregnant women.Design:Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data Sources:MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to 13 November 2020.Eligibility Criteria and Data Analysis:Included studies measured the sensitivity and specificity ofPOC proteinuria testing compared to laboratory reference standards (protein-creatinine ratio (PCR), 24-hour urine collection). Bivariate meta-analyses determined pooled sensitivity and specificity. Random-effects inverse-variance model determinedheterogeneity.Main Outcome Measures:The primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of POC testing and reference standard. Secondary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity within thesubgroupstest brand, reference standard, and hypertension status.Results: 1078 studies were identified, 17 studies comprising 23 comparisons were included. The meta-analysis included 13 studies with 19 comparisons. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of visual dipsticks against PCR was 72 % (95 % CI: 56 % to 84 %) and 92 % (95 % CI: 76 % to 98 %), respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of visual dipsticks against 24-hour collection was 69 % (55 % to 80 %) and 70 % (51 % to 84 %), respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for automated readers against PCR was 73 % (53 % to 86 %) and 91 % (83 % to 95 %), respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of automated readers against 24-hour collection was 65 % (42 % to 83 %) and 82 % (46 % to 96 %), respectively.Conclusion: Visual dipsticks have comparable accuracy to automated readers, yet are notadequate as a rule-out test for proteinuria. Proteinuria POC testing maybe beneficial inantenatal care when repeatfollow-up tests are performed.PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42021231914.