scholarly journals Diagnosis of SARS-Cov-2 infection using specimens other than naso- and oropharyngeal swabs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vânia M. Moreira ◽  
Paulo Mascarenhas ◽  
Vanessa Machado ◽  
João Botelho ◽  
José João Mendes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
False Positives ◽  
Sample Collection ◽  
Oral Region ◽  
Free Sample ◽  
Alternative Specimen

SUMMARYBackgroundThe rapid and accurate testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection is still crucial to mitigate, and eventually halt, the spread of this disease. Currently, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) are the recommended standard sampling, yet, with some limitations. Several specimens that are easier to collect are being tested as alternatives to nasal/throat swabs in nucleic acid assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This study aims to critically appraise and compare the clinical performance of RT-PCR tests using oral saliva, deep-throat saliva/ posterior oropharyngeal saliva (DTS/POS), sputum, urine, feces, and tears/conjunctival swab [CS]) against standard specimens (NPS, OPS, or a combination of both).MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov and NIPH Clinical Trial) were searched up to the 30th of December 2020. Case-control and cohort studies on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were included. Methodological quality was assessed through the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2).FindingsWe identified 3022 entries, 33 of which (1.1%) met all required criteria and were included for the quantitative data analysis. Saliva presented the higher accuracy, 92.1% (95% CI: 70.0-98.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI: 77.4-88.8) and specificity of 96.4% (95% CI: 89.5-98.8). DTS/POS samples had an overall accuracy of 79.7% (95% CI: 43.3-95.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 90.1% (95% CI: 83.3-96.9) and specificity of 63.1% (95% CI: 36.8-89.3). Remaining index specimens presented uncertainty given the lack of studies available.InterpretationOur meta-analysis shows that saliva samples from oral region provide a high sensitivity and specificity, being the best candidate as an alternative specimen to NPS/OPS for COVID-19 detection, with suitable protocols for swab-free sample collection to be determined and validated in the future. The distinction between oral and extra-oral salivary samples will be crucial since DTS/POS samples may induce a higher rate of false positives. Urine, feces, tears/CS and sputum seem unreliable for diagnosis. Saliva testing may increase testing capacity, ultimately promoting the implementation of truly deployable COVID-19 tests, which could either work at the point-of-care (e.g. hospitals, clinics) or outbreak control spots (e.g. schools, airports, and nursing homes).FundingNothing to declare.Research in contextEvidence before this studyThe lack of systematized data on the accuracy performance of alternative specimens for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 (against the standard NPS/OPS). The ever-growing number of studies available, made this updated systematic review timely and of the utmost importanceAdded value of this studyOur meta-analysis shows that saliva samples from the oral region provide a high sensitivity and specificity, being the best candidate as an alternative specimen to NPS/OPS for COVID-19 detection, with suitable protocols for swab-free sample collection to be determined and validated in the future. The distinction between oral and extra-oral salivary samples will be crucial since DTS/POS samples may induce a higher rate of false positives.Implications of all the available evidenceSaliva samples simply taken from the oral cavity are promising alternatives to the currently used nasal/throat swabs. Saliva specimens can be self-collected, mitigate the discomfort caused by sampling, reduce the transmission risk and increase testing capacity. Therefore, the validation of this alternative specimen will promote the implementation of truly deployable rapid tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection at the point-of-care or outbreak spots.

scholarly journals Diagnosis of SARS-Cov-2 Infection by RT-PCR Using Specimens Other Than Naso- and Oropharyngeal Swabs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 363
Author(s):  
Vânia M. Moreira ◽  
Paulo Mascarenhas ◽  
Vanessa Machado ◽  
João Botelho ◽  
José João Mendes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽  
Sample Collection ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Oropharyngeal Swab ◽  
Nucleic Acid Assays

The rapid and accurate testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection is still crucial to mitigate, and eventually halt, the spread of this disease. Currently, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) are the recommended standard sampling techniques, yet, these have some limitations such as the complexity of collection. Hence, several other types of specimens that are easier to obtain are being tested as alternatives to nasal/throat swabs in nucleic acid assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This study aims to critically appraise and compare the clinical performance of RT-PCR tests using oral saliva, deep-throat saliva/posterior oropharyngeal saliva (DTS/POS), sputum, urine, feces, and tears/conjunctival swab (CS) against standard specimens (NPS, OPS, or a combination of both). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov and NIPH Clinical Trial) were searched up to the 30th of December, 2020. Case-control and cohort studies on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2). We identified 1560 entries, 33 of which (1.1%) met all required criteria and were included for the quantitative data analysis. Saliva presented the higher accuracy, 92.1% (95% CI: 70.0–98.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI: 77.4–88.8) and specificity of 96.4% (95% CI: 89.5–98.8). DTS/POS samples had an overall accuracy of 79.7% (95% CI: 43.3–95.3), with an estimated sensitivity of 90.1% (95% CI: 83.3–96.9) and specificity of 63.1% (95% CI: 36.8–89.3). The remaining index specimens could not be adequately assessed given the lack of studies available. Our meta-analysis shows that saliva samples from the oral region provide a high sensitivity and specificity; therefore, these appear to be the best candidates for alternative specimens to NPS/OPS in SARS-CoV-2 detection, with suitable protocols for swab-free sample collection to be determined and validated in the future. The distinction between oral and extra-oral salivary samples will be crucial, since DTS/POS samples may induce a higher rate of false positives. Urine, feces, tears/CS and sputum seem unreliable for diagnosis. Saliva testing may increase testing capacity, ultimately promoting the implementation of truly deployable COVID-19 tests, which could either work at the point-of-care (e.g. hospitals, clinics) or at outbreak control spots (e.g., schools, airports, and nursing homes).

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m2516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayara Lisboa Bastos ◽  
Gamuchirai Tavaziva ◽  
Syed Kunal Abidi ◽  
Jonathon R Campbell ◽  
Louis-Patrick Haraoui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Symptom Onset ◽  
Serological Test ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Immunoglobulin Class

AbstractObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.Results5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).ConclusionHigher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179452.

scholarly journals Accuracy of Non-Contrast MRI for the Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2022 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liping Lu ◽  
Xuming Pan
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Chronic Viral Hepatitis ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Creative Commons

Non-contrast MRI is used for identifying patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), especially among high-risk patients with cirrhosis or chronic viral hepatitis. The accuracy of non-contrast MRI has been investigated with varying results. We performed this meta-analysis to consolidate the evidence on the accuracy of non-contrast MRI for the detection of HCC. We conducted a systematic search in the databases of PubMed Central, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane from inception till November 2020. We used the STATA software “Midas” package for meta-analysis. We included 15 studies with 3,756 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of non-contrast MRI for HCC detection were 84% (95%CI, 78%-88%) and 94% (95%CI, 91%-97%). The positive likelihood ratio was 14.9 (95% CI, 9.0-24.7) and the negative one 0.17 (0.12-0.23). The overall quality of the studies was high. We found significant heterogeneity based on chi-square test results and I2 statistic > 75%. Deek’s test showed the absence of publication bias. We found that non-contrast MRI has high sensitivity and specificity as a tool for detecting HCC. Studies exploring its accuracy in different ethnic populations are required to strengthen the evidence. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.38.3.5142 How to cite this:Lu L, Pan X. Accuracy of Non-Contrast MRI for the Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pak J Med Sci. 2022;38(3):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.38.3.5142 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

scholarly journals Diagnostic Accuracy of Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy for the Diagnosis of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (23) ◽  
pp. 12390
Author(s):  
Sneha Sethi ◽  
Xiangqun Ju ◽  
Richard M. Logan ◽  
Paul Sambrook ◽  
Robert A. McLaughlin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy ◽  
Confocal Laser ◽  
Likelihood Ratios

Background: Advances in treatment approaches for patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) have been unsuccessful in preventing frequent recurrences and distant metastases, leading to a poor prognosis. Early detection and prevention enable an improved 5-year survival and better prognosis. Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (CLE) is a non-invasive imaging instrument that could enable an earlier diagnosis and possibly help in reducing unnecessary invasive surgical procedures. Objective: To present an up to date systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CLE in diagnosing OSCC. Materials and Methods. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were explored up to 30 June 2021, to collect articles concerning the diagnosis of OSCC through CLE. Screening: data extraction and appraisal was done by two reviewers. The quality of the methodology followed by the studies included in this review was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. A random effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Results: Six studies were included, leading to a total number of 361 lesions in 213 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95% (95% CI, 92–97%; I2 = 77.5%) and 93% (95% CI, 90–95%; I2 = 68.6%); the pooled positive likelihood ratios and negative likelihood ratios were 10.85 (95% CI, 5.4–21.7; I2 = 55.9%) and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.03–0.2; I2 = 83.5%); and the pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 174.45 (95% CI, 34.51–881.69; I2 = 73.6%). Although risk of bias and heterogeneity is observed, this study validates that CLE may have a noteworthy clinical influence on the diagnosis of OSCC, through its high sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions: This review indicates an exceptionally high sensitivity and specificity of CLE for diagnosing OSCC. Whilst it is a promising diagnostic instrument, the limited number of existing studies and potential risk of bias of included studies does not allow us to draw firm conclusions. A conclusive inference can be drawn when more studies, possibly with homogeneous methodological approach, are performed.

Is jaw fractal dimension a reliable biomarker for osteoporosis screening? A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davi de Sá Cavalcante ◽  
Paulo Goberlânio de Barros Silva ◽  
Francisco Samuel Rodrigues Carvalho ◽  
Ana Rosa Pinto Quidute ◽  
Lúcio Mitsuo Kurita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Fractal Dimension ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Total Sample ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Osteoporosis Screening

Objective: To summarize the evidence on the feasibility of maxillomandibular imaging exams-related fractal dimension (FD) in screening patients with osteoporosis. Methods: This registered systematic review followed the PRISMA-DTA statement. High sensitivity search strategies were developed for six primary databases and grey literature. QUADAS-2 items evaluated the risk of bias, and the GRADE approach assessed the evidence certainty. Results: From 1,034 records initially identified through database searching, four studies were included (total sample of 747 patients [osteoporosis, 136; control group, 611]). The meta-analysis showed that the overall sensitivity and specificity of the FD were 86.17 and 72.68%, respectively. In general, all studies showed low RoB and applicability concern. The certainty of the evidence was very low to moderate. Conclusions: This systematic review showed that the jaw-related FD presented sensitivity and specificity values higher than 70%, and its sensitivity in osteoporosis screening was a better parameter than specificity.

scholarly journals Clinical Test Performance of a Rapid Point-of-Care Syphilis Treponemal Antibody Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S52-S57
Author(s):  
Claire C Bristow ◽  
Jeffrey D Klausner ◽  
Anthony Tran
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treponema Pallidum ◽  
Antibody Test ◽  
Health Check ◽  
Clinical Test

Abstract We reviewed relevant syphilis diagnostic literature and conducted a meta-analysis to address the question, “What is the sensitivity and specificity of the Syphilis Health Check, a rapid qualitative test for the detection of human antibodies to Treponema pallidum.” The Syphilis Health Check is the only rapid syphilis test currently cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis using Bayesian bivariate random-effects and fixed-effect models to create pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity of the Syphilis Health Check. We identified 5 test evaluations published in the literature and 10 studies submitted to the FDA and for a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments waiver application. The pooled sensitivity (95% CI) from the laboratory evaluations (n = 5) was 98.5% (92.1–100%), while pooled specificity was 95.9% (81.5–100.0%). The pooled sensitivity for prospective studies (n = 10) was 87.7% ( 71.8–97.2%), while pooled specificity was 96.7% (91.9–99.2%). Using nontreponemal supplemental testing, the sensitivity improved to a pooled sensitivity of 97.0% (94.8–98.6%). The Syphilis Health Check may provide accurate detection of treponemal antibody.

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of combined cardiac troponin and copeptin assessment for early rule-out of myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatiana Raskovalova ◽  
Raphael Twerenbold ◽  
Paul O Collinson ◽  
Till Keller ◽  
Hélène Bouvaist ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Cardiac Troponin ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Myocardial Necrosis ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
St Segment Elevation ◽  
Rule Out

Aims: This systematic review aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of combined cardiac troponin (cTn) and copeptin assessment in comparison to cTn alone for early rule-out of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods: Primary studies were eligible if they evaluated diagnostic accuracy for cTn with and without copeptin in patients with symptoms suggestive of AMI. AMI was defined according to the universal definition, using detection of cTn as a marker for myocardial necrosis. Eligible studies were identified by searching electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Pascal, and Cochrane) from inception to March 2013, reviewing conference proceedings and contacting field experts and the copeptin manufacturer. Results: In 15 studies totalling 8740 patients (prevalence of AMI 16%), adding copeptin improved the sensitivity of cTn assays (from 0.87 to 0.96, p=0.003) at the expense of lower specificity (from 0.84 to 0.56, p<0.001). In 12 studies providing data for 6988 patients without ST-segment elevation, the summary sensitivity and specificity estimates were 0.95 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.98) and 0.57 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.65) for the combined assessment of cTn and copeptin. When a high-sensitivity cTnT assay was used in combination with copeptin, the summary sensitivity and specificity estimates were 0.98 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.00) and 0.50 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.58). Conclusion: Despite substantial between-study heterogeneity, this meta-analysis demonstrates that copeptin significantly improves baseline cTn sensitivity. Management studies are needed to establish the effectiveness and safety of measuring copeptin in combination with high-sensitivity cTnT for early rule-out of AMI without serial testing.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Accuracy of in VivoReflectance Confocal Microscopy for the Diagnosis of Primary Basal Cell Carcinoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 1462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lupu ◽  
Popa ◽  
Voiculescu ◽  
Caruntu ◽  
Caruntu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Confocal Microscopy ◽  
Basal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Basal Cell ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Diagnostic Odds Ratio ◽  
Likelihood Ratios

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common cancer worldwide and its incidence is constantly rising. Early diagnosis and treatment can significantly reduce patient morbidity and healthcare costs. The value of reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) in non-melanoma skin cancer diagnosis is still under debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the diagnostic accuracy of RCM in primary BCC. PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to July 05, 2019, to collect articles concerning primary BCC diagnosis through RCM. The studies’ methodological quality was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool. The meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 13.0, RevMan 5.0, and MetaDisc 1.4 software. We included 15 studies totaling a number of 4163 lesions. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87–0.95; I2= 85.27%) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.85–0.97; I2= 94.61%), the pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios were 13.51 (95% CI, 5.8–31.37; I2= 91.01%) and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.05–0.14; I2= 84.83%), and the pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 160.31 (95% CI, 64.73–397.02; I2=71%). Despite the heterogeneity and risk of bias, this study demonstrates that RCM, through its high sensitivity and specificity, may have a significant clinical impact on the diagnosis of primary BCC.

scholarly journals Diagnostic Accuracy of Radiologic Methods for Ankle Syndesmosis Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 968 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chun ◽  
Cho ◽  
Min ◽  
Park ◽  
Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Syndesmosis Injury ◽  
Arthroscopic Findings ◽  
Similar Accuracy ◽  
Radiological Methods

: Misdiagnosis and inadequate treatment of syndesmosis could result in significant long-term morbidity including pain, instability, and degenerative changes of the ankle joint. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether radiologic tests accurately and reliably diagnose ankle syndesmosis injury. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane were searched. The database search resulted in 258 full text articles that we assessed for eligibility, we used eight studies that met all the inclusion criteria. In subgroup meta-analysis, the sensitivity analysis showed significant differences only in the MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), and specificity was not statistically significant. In diagnostic meta-analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.528 and 0.984 for X-rays, 0.669 and 0.87 for CT (Computed Tomography), and 0.929 and 0.865 for MRI, all respectively. For sensitivity, MRI showed significantly sensitivity as higher than the other methods, and we detected no significance for specificity. Syndesmosis injuries differed significantly in the accuracy of radiological methods according to the presence of accompanied ankle fractures. In patients with fractures, simple radiography has good specificity, and CT and MRI have high sensitivity and specificity irrespective of fracture; in particular, MRI has similar accuracy to gold standard arthroscopic findings.

scholarly journals Performance of Saliva, Oropharyngeal Swabs, and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rose A. Lee ◽  
Joshua C. Herigon ◽  
Andrea Benedetti ◽  
Nira R. Pollock ◽  
Claudia M. Denkinger
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Rna Extraction ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Sample Collection ◽  
Specimen Collection ◽  
Nasal Swabs ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Alternative Specimen

ABSTRACTBackgroundNasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the highest-yield sample for diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The need to increase capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a variety of settings, combined with shortages of sample collection supplies, have motivated a search for alternative sample types with high sensitivity. We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the performance of alternative sample types compared to NP swabs.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv (last retrieval October 1st, 2020) for comparative studies of alternative specimen types [saliva, oropharyngeal (OP), and nasal (NS) swabs] versus NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). A logistic-normal random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate % positive alternative-specimen, % positive NP, and % dual positives overall and in sub-groups. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess bias.ResultsFrom 1,253 unique citations, we identified 25 saliva, 11 NS, 6 OP, and 4 OP/NS studies meeting inclusion criteria. Three specimen types captured lower % positives [NS (0.82, 95% CI: 0.73-0.90), OP (0.84, 95% CI: 0.57-1.0), saliva (0.88, 95% CI: 0.81 – 0.93)] than NP swabs, while combined OP/NS matched NP performance (0.97, 95% CI: 0.90-1.0). Absence of RNA extraction (saliva) and utilization of a more sensitive NAAT (NS) substantially decreased alternative-specimen yield.ConclusionsNP swabs remain the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, although alternative specimens are promising. Much remains unknown about the impact of variations in specimen collection, processing protocols, and population (pediatric vs. adult, late vs. early in disease course) and head-to head studies of sampling strategies are urgently needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document