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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gracienta, Tiara Josephine, Herardi, Ryan, Santosa, Frans, Pasiak, Taufiq Fredrik, Tjang, Yanto Sandy
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