1. Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for COVID-19
- Author
-
Roberto Pontarolo, Raquel de Oliveira Vilhena, Fernanda S. Tonin, Mariana Millan Fachi, Alexandre de Fátima Cobre, and Beatriz Böger
- Subjects
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ,Epidemiology ,Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) ,diagnostic ,specificity ,Computed tomography ,Urine ,Antibodies, Viral ,Sensitivity and Specificity ,Article ,COVID-19 Serological Testing ,Coronavirus Envelope Proteins ,03 medical and health sciences ,COVID-19 Testing ,0302 clinical medicine ,systematic review ,parasitic diseases ,medicine ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Lung ,0303 health sciences ,Coronavirus RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,SARS-CoV-2 ,030306 microbiology ,business.industry ,Health Policy ,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health ,COVID-19 ,Diagnostic test ,Gold standard (test) ,sensitivity ,Infectious Diseases ,Immunoglobulin M ,COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing ,Immunoglobulin G ,Meta-analysis ,Sputum ,medicine.symptom ,Tomography, X-Ray Computed ,Nuclear medicine ,business - Abstract
Highlights • RT-PCR followed by CT shows high sensitivity for detecting COVID-19 • Immunological tests should use a combination of IgG and IgM • The genes E and RdRp present high analytical sensitivity to detect the virus • Assays for molecular diagnosis should employ two-target systems • Studies of diagnostic tests for COVID-19 are of moderate methodological quality, 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.
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF