Cargando…
Diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests in detecting coronavirus disease 2019: systematic review
INTRODUCTION: The rapid transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requires a fast, accurate, and affordable detection method. Despite doubts of their diagnostic accuracy, rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are used worldwide due to their practicality. This systematic review aims to determine th...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Termedia Publishing House
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9266800/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35832707 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms/135910 |
_version_ | 1784743557985206272 |
---|---|
author | Gracienta, Tiara Josephine Herardi, Ryan Santosa, Frans Pasiak, Taufiq Fredrik Tjang, Yanto Sandy |
author_facet | Gracienta, Tiara Josephine Herardi, Ryan Santosa, Frans Pasiak, Taufiq Fredrik Tjang, Yanto Sandy |
author_sort | Gracienta, Tiara Josephine |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: The rapid transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requires a fast, accurate, and affordable detection method. Despite doubts of their diagnostic accuracy, rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are used worldwide due to their practicality. This systematic review aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based RDTs in detecting COVID-19. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was carried out on five journal databases using the PRISMA-P 2015 method. We included all studies published up to February 2021. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. Data regarding peer-review status, study design, test kit information, immunoglobulin class, target antigen, and the number of samples were extracted and tabulated. We estimated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with a 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies met the eligibility criteria. The pooled data results showed that the combined detection method of IgM or IgG had the highest sensitivity and NPV, which were 73.41% (95% CI: 72.22–74.57) and 75.34% (95% CI: 74.51–76.16), respectively. The single IgG detection method had the highest specificity and PPV of 96.68% (95% CI: 96.25–97.07) and 95.97% (95% CI: 95.47–96.42%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Antibody-based RDTs are not satisfactory as primary diagnostic tests but have utility as a screening tool. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9266800 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Termedia Publishing House |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92668002022-07-12 Diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests in detecting coronavirus disease 2019: systematic review Gracienta, Tiara Josephine Herardi, Ryan Santosa, Frans Pasiak, Taufiq Fredrik Tjang, Yanto Sandy Arch Med Sci Systematic review/Meta-analysis INTRODUCTION: The rapid transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requires a fast, accurate, and affordable detection method. Despite doubts of their diagnostic accuracy, rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are used worldwide due to their practicality. This systematic review aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based RDTs in detecting COVID-19. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was carried out on five journal databases using the PRISMA-P 2015 method. We included all studies published up to February 2021. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. Data regarding peer-review status, study design, test kit information, immunoglobulin class, target antigen, and the number of samples were extracted and tabulated. We estimated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with a 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies met the eligibility criteria. The pooled data results showed that the combined detection method of IgM or IgG had the highest sensitivity and NPV, which were 73.41% (95% CI: 72.22–74.57) and 75.34% (95% CI: 74.51–76.16), respectively. The single IgG detection method had the highest specificity and PPV of 96.68% (95% CI: 96.25–97.07) and 95.97% (95% CI: 95.47–96.42%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Antibody-based RDTs are not satisfactory as primary diagnostic tests but have utility as a screening tool. Termedia Publishing House 2021-05-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9266800/ /pubmed/35832707 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms/135910 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Termedia & Banach https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license. |
spellingShingle | Systematic review/Meta-analysis Gracienta, Tiara Josephine Herardi, Ryan Santosa, Frans Pasiak, Taufiq Fredrik Tjang, Yanto Sandy Diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests in detecting coronavirus disease 2019: systematic review |
title | Diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests in detecting coronavirus disease 2019: systematic review |
title_full | Diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests in detecting coronavirus disease 2019: systematic review |
title_fullStr | Diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests in detecting coronavirus disease 2019: systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests in detecting coronavirus disease 2019: systematic review |
title_short | Diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests in detecting coronavirus disease 2019: systematic review |
title_sort | diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests in detecting coronavirus disease 2019: systematic review |
topic | Systematic review/Meta-analysis |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9266800/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35832707 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms/135910 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gracientatiarajosephine diagnosticaccuracyofantibodybasedrapiddiagnostictestsindetectingcoronavirusdisease2019systematicreview AT herardiryan diagnosticaccuracyofantibodybasedrapiddiagnostictestsindetectingcoronavirusdisease2019systematicreview AT santosafrans diagnosticaccuracyofantibodybasedrapiddiagnostictestsindetectingcoronavirusdisease2019systematicreview AT pasiaktaufiqfredrik diagnosticaccuracyofantibodybasedrapiddiagnostictestsindetectingcoronavirusdisease2019systematicreview AT tjangyantosandy diagnosticaccuracyofantibodybasedrapiddiagnostictestsindetectingcoronavirusdisease2019systematicreview |