Cargando…

Laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19()

OBJECTIVES: This was a non-systematic review of the literature on the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Searches in PubMed and Google Scholar for articles made available in 2020, using the terms “diagnosis” OR “diagnostic” OR “diagnostic tests” OR “tests” AND “COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2”...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Goudouris, Ekaterini S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32882235
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2020.08.001
_version_ 1783575831054909440
author Goudouris, Ekaterini S.
author_facet Goudouris, Ekaterini S.
author_sort Goudouris, Ekaterini S.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: This was a non-systematic review of the literature on the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Searches in PubMed and Google Scholar for articles made available in 2020, using the terms “diagnosis” OR “diagnostic” OR “diagnostic tests” OR “tests” AND “COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2” in the title. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: Tests for the etiological agent identify genetic material of SARS-CoV-2 or humoral responses to it. The gold standard for diagnosis is the identification of viral genome targets by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in respiratory tract materials during the first week of symptoms. Serological tests should be indicated from the second week of symptoms onwards. A wide range of different tests is available, with variable sensitivity and specificity, most of which require validation. Laboratory tests such as complete blood count, C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, clotting tests, lactic dehydrogenase (LDH), ferritin, and procalcitonin identify risk of disease with greater severity, thromboembolic complications, myocardial damage, and/or worse prognosis. Imaging tests may be useful for diagnosis, especially when there is a compatible clinical picture, and other tests presented negative results or were unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of genetic material of the virus by RT-PCR is the gold standard test, but its sensitivity is not satisfactory. The diagnosis of COVID-19 should be based on clinical data, epidemiological history, tests for etiological diagnosis, and tests to support the diagnosis of the disease and/or its complications. New diagnostic methods with higher sensitivity and specificity, as well as faster results, are necessary.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7456621
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74566212020-08-31 Laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19() Goudouris, Ekaterini S. J Pediatr (Rio J) Review Article OBJECTIVES: This was a non-systematic review of the literature on the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Searches in PubMed and Google Scholar for articles made available in 2020, using the terms “diagnosis” OR “diagnostic” OR “diagnostic tests” OR “tests” AND “COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2” in the title. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: Tests for the etiological agent identify genetic material of SARS-CoV-2 or humoral responses to it. The gold standard for diagnosis is the identification of viral genome targets by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in respiratory tract materials during the first week of symptoms. Serological tests should be indicated from the second week of symptoms onwards. A wide range of different tests is available, with variable sensitivity and specificity, most of which require validation. Laboratory tests such as complete blood count, C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, clotting tests, lactic dehydrogenase (LDH), ferritin, and procalcitonin identify risk of disease with greater severity, thromboembolic complications, myocardial damage, and/or worse prognosis. Imaging tests may be useful for diagnosis, especially when there is a compatible clinical picture, and other tests presented negative results or were unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of genetic material of the virus by RT-PCR is the gold standard test, but its sensitivity is not satisfactory. The diagnosis of COVID-19 should be based on clinical data, epidemiological history, tests for etiological diagnosis, and tests to support the diagnosis of the disease and/or its complications. New diagnostic methods with higher sensitivity and specificity, as well as faster results, are necessary. Elsevier 2020-08-31 /pmc/articles/PMC7456621/ /pubmed/32882235 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2020.08.001 Text en © 2020 Sociedade Brasileira de Pediatria. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review Article
Goudouris, Ekaterini S.
Laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19()
title Laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19()
title_full Laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19()
title_fullStr Laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19()
title_full_unstemmed Laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19()
title_short Laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19()
title_sort laboratory diagnosis of covid-19()
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32882235
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2020.08.001
work_keys_str_mv AT goudourisekaterinis laboratorydiagnosisofcovid19