Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Accuracy of Signs, Symptoms, and Hematologic Parameters for the Diagnosis of Infectious Mononucleosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Xinyan Cai, Mark H. Ebell and Lauren Haines
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine November 2021, 34 (6) 1141-1156; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2021.06.210217
Xinyan Cai
From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA (XC, MHE, LH).
PhD, MSPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark H. Ebell
From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA (XC, MHE, LH).
MD, MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lauren Haines
From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA (XC, MHE, LH).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 1.

    PRISMA flow diagram describing the search process.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 2.

    Receiver operative characteristic curve by cutoff values for (a) lymphocyte percentage and (b) atypical lymphocyte percentage.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 3.

    Receiver operative characteristic curve stratified by the reference standard tests for (a) lymphocytes greater than 50% and (b) atypical lymphocytes greater than 10%.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Characteristics of Included Studies

    Author, YearDesignNumberInclusion CriteriaAgeSex/CountryYear(s) Patients Recruited
    Balfour, 200516Prospective cohort25College students aged ≥18 years who had a clinical diagnosis of IM and presented within 10 days after the onset of symptoms were included. Students were excluded if they had acute infection consistent with IM or if they were immunocompromised.Mean, 21 years72% femaleEBV profile was tested by EIA (80%)United States2002 to 2004
    Biggs, 20139Retrospective cohort726Retrospective patients presenting with sore throat, fever, and lymphadenopathy and undergoing Monospot test at university health service were included in the study. Patients without full blood count results were excluded from the study.Positive group: Mean, 21 years; Negative group: Mean, 30 yearsNAMonospot test (Heterophile antibody test) (6.9%)United Kingdom2011 to 2012
    Grotto, 20036Prospective cohort590Young adults who were clinically suspected with IM and reported diagnosis of clinical IM for physical and lab examinations at military lab were included. Patients with intermediate EBV or CMV IgM were excluded from the study.NA40% femaleMono-Latex (heterophile antibody test) and detection of IgM by ELISA kit (64.4%)Israel1988 to 1991
    Hossain, 198922Prospective cohort38Patients aged 5 to 32 years presenting with symptoms suggestive of IM were studied. The minimal criteria included temperature greater than 37°C, greater than 50% lymphocytes and monocytes, and at least 10% atypical lymphocytes.NANAIM Quick test to detect heterophile antibodies and EBV profile was tested by indirect/IFA (76.3%)Saudi ArabiaNA
    Llor, 201223Prospective cohort144Consecutive adults aged over 14 years with sore throat and 4 Centor criteria—tonsillar exudate, fever, lymph glands tenderness, and absence of cough—and negative pharyngeal testing for group Aβ were recruited.Mean, 24 years53% femaleOSOM MonoTest (Genzyme) as immunochromatographic technology to detect EBV profile, then PBD test (10.9%)Spain2006 to 2009
    Lennon, 201027Retrospective cohort10001000 patients with tonsillitis both in an outpatient and inpatient setting were analyzed to compare the L/WBC ratio in 500 positive and 500 negative Monospot test results.NA68% femaleMonospot test (Heterophile antibody test) (50%)IrelandNA
    Sumaya, 198517Case series113Pediatric patients aged 16 years and younger who had clinical manifestations consistent with IM (fever, tonsillopharyngitis, cervical adenopathy, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly) were included in the study. Patients with WBC≥50% or ≥5000 lymphocytes and at least 10% atypical lymphocytes were also included.Median, 4 yearsNAEBV profiles were tested by indirect/IFA, and rapid slide tests to detect heterophile antibodies (100%)United States1976 to 1982
    Ventura, 200418Retrospective cohort147Consecutive patients with clinical features that were suspected with IM and had heterophile antibody tests ordered were included in the study.Mean, 20 years58% femaleMono-Latex slide (heterophile antibody test) (46.3%)United StatesNA
    Rea, 20013Case series150Patients aged 16 years or older with EBV infection had a positive heterophile antibody test and reported the onset of symptoms within 2 weeks of the test ordered were included in the study. Those suffering chronic, disabling medical condition or having been treated with steroids were excluded.Mean, 22 years48% femaleAll patients had positive heterophile antibody test; IFA was used to detect VCA-IgM and VCA-IgG (100%)United StatesNA
    Brigden, 19998Prospective cohort181Sera were obtained from patients with clinical diagnoses of mononucleosis who subsequently tested positive for heterophile antibody using Monosticon test and from 181 patients with clinical suspected IM who tested negative for heterophile antibody test.Mean, 21 years59% femaleMonosticon Dri-Dot test (heterophile antibody test) (50%)CanadaNA
    Ginsburg, 197719Prospective cohort43Children aged 1 to 13 years were selected based on the symptoms and signs compatible with IM. All of them had positive Monospot reactions and showed atypical lymphocytes, and their serum was collected during the acute phase at pediatric outpatient clinic.Mean, 7.7 years37% femaleEBV profile was tested by indirect/IFA (69.8%)United States1974 to 1975
    Fleisher, 198320Prospective cohort500Sera from consecutive patients seeking treatment at university health service with illness suggestive of IM were included for EBV-specific serological test. WBC and differential counts were performed uniformly during weekdays and sporadically at other times.NANAEBV profiles were tested by indirect/IFA (28.3%)United States1980 to 1981
    Krabbe, 198124Prospective cohort43Consecutive hospitalized children aged between 6 months and 7 years were selected if displaying one of the following: nonbacterial pharyngitis or tonsillitis, lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, rash or unknown etiology, a blood count with more than 10% atypical lymphocytes, or thrombocytopenia.Below 7 yearsNAVCA-IgM and IgG were tested by indirect immunofluorescence test (18.6%)Denmark1981
    Chretien, 197721Case series150Patients aged between 17 and 29 years diagnosed with IM from university health service were included in the study. The diagnoses were based on usual clinical criteria for the presence of atypical lymphocytes on peripheral blood smears and positive heterophile antibody tests.NA36.7% femaleMonospot test (heterophile antibody test) (100%)United StatesNA
    Aronson, 19825Prospective cohort709Consecutive ambulatory adult patients aged between 16 and 73 years presenting sore throat or strep throat from 4 primary care settings were included in the study. The extensive clinical data and heterophile antibody tests were obtained.Mean, 32 years60% femaleMonospot test (heterophile antibody test) (2.1%)United States1976 to 1977
    Gartzonika, 201226Case series118Sera from patients aged between 1 and 47 years with a clinical suspicion of IM or acute EBV infection were included in the study.Median, 21 years51% femaleEBV profile tested using ELISA test and Cellognost-Mononucleosis test to detect heterophile antibodies (100%)GreeceNA
    Ho-Yen, 198125Prospective cohort61Sera from patients with suspected IM and having positive PBD test results were included in the study.Mean, 17 years50% femalePBD test (61%)United KingdomNA
    • CMV, cytomegalovirus; EBV, Epstein-Barr virus; EIA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; IFA, indirect immunofluorescence test/anti-complement immunofluorescence assay; IM, infectious mononucleosis; L/WCC, lymphocyte/white blood cell ratio; NA, not applicable; PBD, Paul-Bunnel Davidsohn (heterophile antibody) test; WBC, white blood cell.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Overview of Study Quality*

    Study, YearPatient SelectionIndex TestReference StdFlow & TimingOverall
    Biggs, 2013LLLLL
    Grotto, 2003LLLLL
    Llor, 2012LLLLL
    Lennon, 2010LLLLL
    Rea, 2001LLLLL
    Brigden, 1999LLLLL
    Krabbe, 1981LLLLL
    Aronson, 1982LLLLL
    Gartzonika, 2012LLLLL
    Hossain, 1989LHLLM
    Sumaya, 1985HLLLM
    Ventura, 2004LHLLM
    Ginsburg, 1977UHLLM
    Fleisher, 1983LLLHM
    Chretien, 1977LHHLH
    Ho-Yen, 1981LHHHH
    Balfour, 2005LHHLH
    • ↵* L = 0, M = 1, and H = 2+ with high likelihood of bias.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Diagnostic Accuracy for Individual Elements of the Clinical Symptom, Sign, and Hematologic Parameter Sort by Positive Likelihood Ratios (LR+) Within Each Category. Where the LR+, Negative Likelihood Ratio (LR-) or Diagnostic Odds Ratio Differed Significantly from 1.0, the Value is Shown in Bold Face

    Studies (Patients)-Case SeriesStudies (Patients)-Cohort StudiesSensitivity (95% CI)Specificity (95% CI)LR+(95% CI)LR-(95% CI)Diagnostic Odds Ratio (95% CI)AUC
    Symptoms
        Nausea or vomiting2 (262)3,213 (326)6,16,230.30(0.22-0.39)0.72(0.34-0.93)1.88(0.54-6.04)0.99(0.63-1.24)2.43(0.25-9.30)0.40
        Headache2 (262)3,214 (1036)5,6,16,230.59(0.40-0.76)0.37(0.23-0.54)1.19(1.01-1.45)0.72(0.50-0.98)1.72(1.03-2.77)0.59
        Sore throat2 (262)3,215 (474)6,16,24,250.81(0.68-0.90)0.25(0.17-0.35)1.121.01-1.25)0.67(0.41- 1.01)1.78(1.00-2.98)0.52
        Malaise or fatigue3 (472)3,21,265 (1137)5,6,16,23–250.72(0.59-0.82)0.24(0.11-0.43)1.02(0.91-1.20)0.99(0.67-1.48)1.09(0.62-1.74)0.57
        Loss of appetite02 (883)5,60.47-0.740.24-0.640.86-1.860.64-1.540.57-2.64
        Cough1 (140)31 (709)50.22-0.400.36(0.32-0.40)0.63(0.31-1.01)1.66(0.99-2.28)0.43(0.14-1.02)
        Abdominal pain02 (197)6,160.33-0.380.00-0.560.58-1.170.90-1.500.40-1.31
        Myalgia or arthralgia2 (262)3,212 (303)6,240.23(0.09-0.49)0.39-0.590.45-1.350.47-1.390.34-2.76
    Signs
        Lymphadenopathy
        Posterior cervical2 (253)3,171 (709)50.67(0.51-0.80)0.87(0.84-0.89)3.16(1.45-5.20)0.68(0.41-0.93)5.18(1.55-12.6)
        Axillary or inguinal1 (113)171 (632)50.23(0.09-0.47)0.82-0.913.05(1.85-4.70)0.67(0.36-0.91)4.97(2.05-10.5)
        Anterior cervical2 (253)3,171 (709)50.74(0.59-0.85)0.43(0.39-0.47)1.27(0.80-1.58)0.65(0.25-1.28)2.47(0.63-6.17)
        Any4 (445)3,17,21,266 (1014)5,6,19,22,24,250.93(0.86-0.97)0.21(0.07-0.49)1.26(1.05-1.65)0.37(0.20-0.67)3.77(1.61-7.55)0.81
        Hepatomegaly1 (140)35 (971)5,6,19,22,240.32(0.07-0.75)0.84(0.18-0.99)2.42(0.95-6.36)0.78(0.48-1.10)3.25(0.84-8.34)0.63
        Splenomegaly2 (262)3,215 (972)5,6,19,22,240.45(0.20-0.73)0.74(0.30-0.95)2.39(1.11-5.51)0.66(0.50-0.84)3.63(1.38-7.77)0.65
        Palatal petechiae1 (122)212 (838)5,230.14(0.06-0.28)0.94-1.001.32-11.400.57-0.941.48-155
        Exudate
        Tonsillar1 (122)212 (747)5,220.47(0.30-0.64)0.78-0.841.39-4.130.23-0.931.49-17.0
        Pharyngeal02 (752)5,190.13-0.500.54-0.930.72-4.350.62-1.290.57-5.39
        Fever
        Measured fever >37.5°C3 (332)3,21,264 (938)5,6,14,170.64(0.37-0.84)0.46(0.17-0.79)1.20(0.91-1.84)0.88(0.63-1.33)1.45(0.67-2.68)0.56
        Subjective fever02 (122)14,230.67(0.48-0.82)0.40(0.24-0.60)1.14(0.85-1.60)0.85(0.49-1.32)1.50(0.64-3.15)
        Jaundice01 (177)60.17(0.10-0.25)0.79(0.68-0.88)0.85(0.45-1.51)1.06(0.91-1.23)0.83(0.37-1.65)
        Diarrhea01 (175)60.15(0.09-0.23)0.79(0.67-0.89)0.79(0.39-1.41)1.07(0.94-1.26)0.76(0.31-1.50)
        Rash4 (445)3,17,21,264 (323)6,16,19,240.12(0.06-0.21)0.75(0.59-0.86)0.48(0.18-1.12)1.24(0.98-1.66)0.41(0.11-1.15)0.22
        Rhinorrhea02 (838)5,240.14-0.470.37-0.830.40-1.530.85-2.200.25-1.78
        Pharyngitis2 (210)3,2600.94(0.68-0.99)----
    Hematologic parameters
        >50% lymphocytes and >10% atypical lymphocytes03 (1361)5,8,200.45(0.29-0.62)0.99(0.92-1.00)50.4(8.43-162)0.58(0.38- 0.76)81.2(19.10-216)0.82
    Atypical lymphocytosis (%)
        >40%01 (362)80.25(0.19-0.32)1.00(0.98-1.00)50.3(38.6-64.1)0.75(0.68-0.82)355(7.43-622)
        >20%01 (362)80.56(0.49-0.64)0.98(0.94-0.99)28.1(9.68-61.4)0.45(0.38-0.52)63.9(10.5-148)
        >10%05 (888)6,8,18,20,240.55(0.38-0.70)0.94(0.91-0.96)8.97(3.39-19.5)0.48(0.31-0.65)19.30(6.48-44.4)0.83
    Lymphocytosis (>4 × 109/L lymphocytes)03 (1235)8,9,180.59(0.27-0.84)0.94(0.93-0.96)10.2(4.79-16.0)0.44(0.16-0.75)30.6(6.53-99.4)0.64
    Lymphocytosis (%)
        >45%01 (1000)280.65(0.61-0.69)0.93(0.90-0.95)9.46(6.76-13.1)0.38(0.34-0.42)25.2(16.5-36.8)
        >50%04 (1740)6,8,20,270.56(0.46-0.65)0.93(0.84-0.97)8.52(2.86-19.9)0.49(0.36-0.63)18.7(4.8-51.1)0.76
        >40%01 (1000)270.74(0.70-0.78)0.86(0.83-0.89)5.31(4.24-6.68)0.30(0.26-0.35)17.7(12.8-24.3)
        >35%01 (1000)270.84(0.80-0.87)0.72(0.68-0.76)3.02(2.63-3.50)0.22(0.18-0.27)13.8(10.1-18.8)
        >30%01 (1000)270.88(0.85-0.91)0.5(0.46-0.55)1.78(1.62-1.97)0.23(0.18-0.30)7.94(5.63-10.8)
    Monocytosis (>1 × 109/L monocytes)02 (1088)8,90.14-0.720.89-0.951.46-7.890.11-0.981.49-55.3
    Atypical lymphocytosis (>1 × 109/L atypical lymphocytes)01 (38)220.93(0.76-0.98)0.11(0.01-0.48)1.11(0.82-1.78)1.20(0.07-5.69)4.16(0.15-25.2)
    Leukocytosis
        >10 × 109/L04 (1281)6,8,9,190.43(0.37-0.49)0.83(0.76-0.88)2.55(1.58-3.99)0.68(0.56-0.82)3.85(1.93-7.01)0.63
        >5 × 109/L02 (193)6,190.93-0.940.15-0.211.05-1.360.15-0.701.51-8.73
        Neutrophilia (>7.5 × 109/L neutrophils)01 (726)90.02(0.00-0.13)0.88(0.85-0.90)0.25(0.02-1.03)1.11(0.99-1.16)0.23(0.02-1.04)
    • AUC, receiver operating characteristics curve; CI, confidence interval.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family   Medicine: 34 (6)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 34, Issue 6
November/December 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Accuracy of Signs, Symptoms, and Hematologic Parameters for the Diagnosis of Infectious Mononucleosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
17 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Accuracy of Signs, Symptoms, and Hematologic Parameters for the Diagnosis of Infectious Mononucleosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Xinyan Cai, Mark H. Ebell, Lauren Haines
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2021, 34 (6) 1141-1156; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2021.06.210217

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Accuracy of Signs, Symptoms, and Hematologic Parameters for the Diagnosis of Infectious Mononucleosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Xinyan Cai, Mark H. Ebell, Lauren Haines
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2021, 34 (6) 1141-1156; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2021.06.210217
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Background
    • Method
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Derivation and validation of clinical prediction rules for diagnosis of infectious mononucleosis: a prospective cohort study
  • Research on the Issues Family Physicians Face Today: Controlled Substances, COVID-19, Hypertension, and "Slow Medicine," Among Many More Topics
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Regional Variation in Scope of Practice by Family Physicians
  • Successful Implementation of Integrated Behavioral Health
  • Identifying and Addressing Social Determinants of Health with an Electronic Health Record
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Evidence-Based Medicine
  • Family Practice
  • Infectious Mononucleosis
  • Meta-Analysis

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire