SynthesisFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of recombinase polymerase amplification-based assays for mosquito-borne virus detection in clinical samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mosquito-borne viral diseases pose an important public health threat due to their frequent outbreaks, similar early clinical manifestations, and potential for rapid transmission. Conventional diagnostic methods, such as virus isolation, serological assays and RT-qPCR, are reliable but may be limited by long turnaround time, cross-reactivity, laboratory equipment requirements and trained operators. Recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA)-based methods have emerged as promising tools for rapid detection of mosquito-borne viruses, but their overall diagnostic accuracy still requires comprehensive evaluation. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic performance of RPA-based assays for mosquito-borne virus detection. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and MEDLINE was conducted using search terms related to mosquito-borne viruses, RPA technology and diagnostic accuracy. Studies reporting sensitivity and specificity or providing sufficient data to construct 2 × 2 contingency tables were included. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using QUADAS-2. R software was used for statistical analysis. A Bayesian bivariate random-effects model was applied to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Results: Ten studies involving 13 data sets in total were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of RPA-based assays were 0.96 (95% CrI: 0.92-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CrI: 0.98-1.00), respectively. The pooled PLR was 146.25 (95% CrI: 35.79-597.57), and the pooled NLR was 0.05 (95% CrI: 0.02-0.10). The area under the SROC curve was 0.987 (95% CrI: 0.972-0.995), suggesting excellent overall diagnostic performance. Subgroup analyses showed that RPA-based assays maintained good diagnostic accuracy in both CRISPR-based and non-CRISPR groups, as well as in DENV and non-DENV subgroups. No significant publication bias was detected by Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test. Conclusion: RPA-based assays showed good diagnostic accuracy for mosquito-borne virus detection, with high pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC. These findings suggest that RPA-based methods may provide a useful technical choice for rapid case identification and public health response. Nevertheless, the limited number of included studies, methodological limitations and insufficient real-world evidence warrant cautious interpretation. More high-quality prospective studies are still needed to confirm their practical feasibility and application value in clinical and public health settings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420261380107.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.