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
Copyright and licensing
Copyright in each article remains with the author(s). Authors grant Bioscientia Medicina: Journal of Biomedicine and Translational Research a non-exclusive right of first publication and the right to identify itself as the original publisher. No exclusive transfer of copyright is required.
All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. Users may copy, redistribute, remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided appropriate attribution is given, a link to the license is supplied, changes are indicated, and adaptations are distributed under the same license.
The license applies to the article's scholarly content unless a credit line states otherwise. Third-party material may be subject to separate rights. Authors retain patent, trademark, moral, and research-data rights. The copyright year follows the article's publication date.
