Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T17:36:46.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating the sensitivity and predictive value of tests of recent infection: toxoplasmosis in pregnancy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. E. Ades
A. E. Ades
Affiliation:
Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Child Health, 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N1EH
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The diagnosis of maternal infection in early pregnancy depends on tests which are sensitive to recent infection, such as specific IgM. Two types of test are considered: those where the response persists for a period following infection and then declines, such as IgM. and those whose response increases with time since infection, such as IgG-avidity. However, individuals vary in their response to infection, and it may not always be possible to determine whether an infection occurred during pregnancy or before it. Mathematical methods are developed to evaluate the performance of these tests, and are applied to the diagnosis of toxoplasmosis in pregnancy. It is shown that, based on existing information, tests of recent infection are unlikely to be both sensitive and predictive. More data on these tests are required, before they can be reliably used to determine whether infection has occurred during pregnancy or before it.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 107 , Issue 3 , December 1991 , pp. 527 - 535
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

References

REFERENCES

1. Editorial. Antenatal screening for toxoplasmosis in the UK. Lancet 1990; 2: 346–8.Google Scholar
2.Joynson, DHM, Payne, R. Screening for toxoplasma in pregnancy. Lancet 1988; 2: 795–6.Google Scholar
3.Ho-Yen, DO. Toxoplasmosis in humans: discussion paper. J R Soc Med 1990; 83: 571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Ho-Yen, DO, Chatterton, JMW. Congenital toxoplasmosis – why and how to screen. Med Microbiol 1990; 1: 229–35.Google Scholar
5.McCabe, R, Remington, JS. Toxoplasmosis: the time has come. N Engl J Med 1988: 318: 313–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Koskiniemi, M, Lappalainen, M, Hedman, K. Toxoplasmosis needs evaluation. Am J Dis Child 1989: 143: 724–8.Google Scholar
7.Frenkel, JK. Diagnosis, incidence, and prevention of congenital toxoplasmosis. Am J Dis Child 1990: 144: 956–7.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Holliman, RE. The diagnosis of toxoplasmosis. Serodiag Immunother Infect Dis 1990; 4: 83–93.Google Scholar
9.Joss, AWL, Chatterton, JMW, Ho-Yen, DO. Congenital toxoplasmosis: to screen or not to screen? Public Health 1990: 104: 9.Google Scholar
10.Hedman, K, Lappalainen, M, Seppala, I, Makela, O. Recent primary toxoplasma infection indicated by a low avidity of specific IgG. J Infect Dis 1989; 159: 736.Google Scholar
11.Stepick-Biek, P, Thulliez, P, Araujo, FG, Remington, JS. IgA antibodies for diagnosis of acute congenital and acquired toxoplasmosis. J Infect Dis 1990; 162: 270–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Joss, AWL, Skinner, LJ, Chatterton, JMW. Simultaneous serological screening for congenital cytomegalovirus and toxoplasma infection. Public Health 1988; 102: 409–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed