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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |