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
_version_ 1783557335904419840
author Böger, Beatriz
Fachi, Mariana M.
Vilhena, Raquel O.
Cobre, Alexandre F.
Tonin, Fernanda S.
Pontarolo, Roberto
author_facet Böger, Beatriz
Fachi, Mariana M.
Vilhena, Raquel O.
Cobre, Alexandre F.
Tonin, Fernanda S.
Pontarolo, Roberto
author_sort Böger, Beatriz
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7350782
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73507822020-07-13 Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for COVID-19 Böger, Beatriz Fachi, Mariana M. Vilhena, Raquel O. Cobre, Alexandre F. Tonin, Fernanda S. Pontarolo, Roberto Am J Infect Control Major Article 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. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. 2021-01 2020-07-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7350782/ /pubmed/32659413 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.07.011 Text en © 2020 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
spellingShingle Major Article
Böger, Beatriz
Fachi, Mariana M.
Vilhena, Raquel O.
Cobre, Alexandre F.
Tonin, Fernanda S.
Pontarolo, Roberto
Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for COVID-19
title Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for COVID-19
title_full Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for COVID-19
title_fullStr Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for COVID-19
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for COVID-19
title_short Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for COVID-19
title_sort systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for covid-19
topic Major Article
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT bogerbeatriz systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisoftheaccuracyofdiagnostictestsforcovid19
AT fachimarianam systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisoftheaccuracyofdiagnostictestsforcovid19
AT vilhenaraquelo systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisoftheaccuracyofdiagnostictestsforcovid19
AT cobrealexandref systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisoftheaccuracyofdiagnostictestsforcovid19
AT toninfernandas systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisoftheaccuracyofdiagnostictestsforcovid19
AT pontaroloroberto systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisoftheaccuracyofdiagnostictestsforcovid19