The Diagnostic Accuracy of IgG Avidity Testing for Differentiating Acute from Chronic Toxoplasmosis in Pregnant Women: A Meta-Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37275/bsm.v9i12.1467Keywords:
Congenital toxoplasmosis, Diagnostic accuracy, IgG avidity, Pregnancy, Toxoplasma gondiiAbstract
Background: Differentiating acute from chronic Toxoplasma gondii infection during pregnancy is a critical diagnostic challenge. Persistent Immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies create ambiguity, complicating clinical management. The IgG avidity test serves as a key tool to estimate infection timing. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate and quantify the diagnostic accuracy of the IgG avidity test for identifying acute toxoplasmosis in pregnant women.
Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and LILACS for studies published between January 2015 and December 2025 evaluating the IgG avidity test's diagnostic accuracy in pregnant women. Included studies required data for a 2x2 contingency table. The QUADAS-2 tool was used for bias assessment. A bivariate random-effects model was used to pool sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios (PLR, NLR), and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR).
Results: Seven studies, comprising 1,250 pregnant women, were included. The pooled sensitivity was 0.96 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.92–0.98), and the pooled specificity was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94–0.99). The pooled PLR was 32.5 (95% CI: 15.1–69.8), the NLR was 0.04 (95% CI: 0.02–0.08), and the DOR was 785 (95% CI: 289–2134). The area under the SROC curve was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97–1.00). Substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies. A sensitivity analysis excluding one study with a high risk of bias did not significantly alter the results, and Deeks' test showed no evidence of publication bias (p=0.21).
Conclusion: The IgG avidity test demonstrated excellent pooled diagnostic accuracy for differentiating acute from chronic toxoplasmosis in pregnancy. However, significant heterogeneity across studies underscores that a single performance estimate is not universally applicable. The test is a powerful tool for resolving diagnostic uncertainty, but results must be interpreted based on assay-specific performance and in the context of the complete clinical picture.
Authors
- Hermalina Sherli Utami1*
- Rohayat Bilmahdi 2
- Fadrian2
- 1Specialized Residency Training Program, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Andalas, Padang, Indonesia
- 2Tropical and Infective Disease Subdivision, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Andalas/Dr. M. Djamil General Hospital, Padang, Indonesia
Corresponding author Hermalina Sherli Utami — hermalinasherliutami@gmail.com
Article history
- Submitted
- Accepted
- Published
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As our aim is to disseminate original research article, hence the publishing right is a necessary one. The publishing right is needed in order to reach the agreement between the author and publisher. As the journal is fully open access, the authors will sign an exclusive license agreement.
The authors have the right to:
- Share their article in the same ways permitted to third parties under the relevant user license.
- Retain copyright, patent, trademark and other intellectual property rights including research data.
- Proper attribution and credit for the published work.
For the open access article, the publisher is granted to the following right.
- The non-exclusive right to publish the article and grant right to others.
- For the published article, the publisher applied for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
