Search

Objective To evaluate the accuracy of the reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay for rapid detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in community or primary-care settings. Method We systematically searched the Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases. We conducted quality evaluation using ReviewManager software (version 5.0). We then used MetaDisc software (version 1.4) and Stata software (version 12.0) to build forest plots, along with a Deeks funnel plot and a bivariate boxplot for analysis. Result Overall, the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.79, 0.97, and 328.18, respectively. The sensitivity for the subgroup with RNA extraction appeared to be higher, at 0.88 (0.86–0.90), compared to the subgroup without RNA extraction, at 0.50 (0.45–0.55), with no significant difference in specificity. Conclusion RT-LAMP assay exhibited high specificity regarding current SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, its overall sensitivity was relatively moderate. Extracting RNA was found to be beneficial in improving sensitivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. The pathogenesis of invasive aspergillosis (IA) is still unknown, but its progression is rapid and mortality rate remains high. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) galactomannan (GM) analysis has been used to diagnose IA. This study is aimed at making an accurate estimate of the whole accuracy of BALF-GM in diagnosing IA. Methods. After a systematic review of the study, a bivariate meta-analysis was used to summarize the specificity (SPE), the sensitivity (SEN), the positive likelihood ratios (PLR), and the negative likelihood ratios (NLR) of BALF-GM in diagnosing IA. The overall test performance was summarized using a layered summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore the heterogeneity between studies. Results. A total of 65 studies that are in line with the inclusion criteria were included. The summary estimates of BALF-GM analysis are divided into four categories. The first is the proven+probable vs. possible+no IA, with an SPE, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.98); SEN, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76-0.84); PLR, 9.78 (5.78-16.56); and NLR, 0.20 (0.14-0.29). The AUC was 0.94. The BALF-GM test for proven+probable vs. no IA showed SPE, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.87-0.90); SEN, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.78-0.85); PLR, 6.56 (4.93-8.75); and NLR, 0.24 (0.17-0.33). The AUC was 0.93. The BALF-GM test for proven+probable+possible vs. no IA showed SPE, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.95); SEN, 0.59 (95% CI, 0.55-0.63); PLR, 3.60 (2.07-6.25); and NLR, 0.31 (0.15-0.61). The AUC was 0.86. The analyses for others showed SPE, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.83-0.87); SEN, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86-0.91); PLR, 6.91 (4.67-10.22); and NLR, 0.18 (0.13-0.26). The AUC was 0.94. Conclusions. The findings of this BALF-GM test resulted in some impact on the diagnosis of IA. The BALF-GM assay is considered a method for diagnosing IA with high SEN and SPE. However, the patients' underlying diseases may affect the accuracy of diagnosis. When the cutoff is greater than 1, the sensitivity will be higher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The articles included in the analysis are comprehensive. • The analysis results show that Xpress Xpert has high diagnostic efficiency and short detection time, so we suggest that Xpress Xpert be used as the gold standard for SARS-COV-2 detection • The Xpress Xpert is fast, accurate, and low-cost, so it can be used for large large-scale screening. The SARS-CoV-2 infection rate, as well as mortality rate, is high. There is an urgent need for a high-throughput, accurate and reliable method of diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia. We included references from databases, such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase, and extracted data. Then, MetaDisc and STATA were used to establish forest plots and funnel plots for meta-analysis. We collected 14 articles and performed a systematic review. The following results were obtained: sensitivity and specificity were 0.97 (0.96 to 0.98) and 0.97 (0.96 to 0.98) respectively; PLR and NLR were 24.51 (16.63–36.12) and 0.03 (0.01 to 0.10) respectively, DOR was 975.15 (430.11–2210.88), and AUC was 0.9926. When Xpress detects SARS-CoV-2 in different samples, the heterogeneity is small and the specificity and sensitivity are extremely high. We recommend the employment of Xpert Xpress analysis in rapid screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]