Cargando…

Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for COVID-19

OBJECTIVE: To collate the evidence on the accuracy parameters of all available diagnostic methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. Searches were conducted in Pubmed and Scopus (April 2020). Studies reporting data on sensitivity or specificity o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Böger, Beatriz, Fachi, Mariana M., Vilhena, Raquel O., Cobre, Alexandre F., Tonin, Fernanda S., Pontarolo, Roberto
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7350782/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32659413
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.07.011
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To collate the evidence on the accuracy parameters of all available diagnostic methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. Searches were conducted in Pubmed and Scopus (April 2020). Studies reporting data on sensitivity or specificity of diagnostic tests for COVID-19 using any human biological sample were included. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were evaluated. Meta-analysis showed that computed tomography has high sensitivity (91.9% [89.8%-93.7%]), but low specificity (25.1% [21.0%-29.5%]). The combination of IgM and IgG antibodies demonstrated promising results for both parameters (84.5% [82.2%-86.6%]; 91.6% [86.0%-95.4%], respectively). For RT-PCR tests, rectal stools/swab, urine, and plasma were less sensitive while sputum (97.2% [90.3%-99.7%]) presented higher sensitivity for detecting the virus. CONCLUSIONS: RT-PCR remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in sputum samples. However, the combination of different diagnostic tests is highly recommended to achieve adequate sensitivity and specificity.