scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis of the sensitivity of antibody tests for the laboratory confirmation of COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel A Makoah ◽  
Thomas Tipih ◽  
Matefo M Litabe ◽  
Mareza Brink ◽  
Joseph B Sempa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Nucleic Acid ◽  
Symptom Onset ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests ◽  
Laboratory Confirmation ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Low Sensitivity

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the utility of serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 during the first week of symptom onset in patients confirmed with the real-time RT-PCR. Materials & methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 58 publications were performed using data obtained from Academic Search Ultimate, Africa-wide, Scopus, Web of Science and MEDLINE. Results: We found that the highest pooled sensitivities were obtained with ELISA IgM-IgG and chemiluminescence immunoassay IgM tests. Conclusion: Serological tests have low sensitivity within the first week of symptom onset and cannot replace nucleic acid amplification tests. However, serological assays can be used to support nucleic acid amplification tests.

scholarly journals Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests for abdominal tuberculosis: A protocol

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0243765
Author(s):  
Yanqin Shen ◽  
Likui Fang ◽  
Bo Ye ◽  
Guocan Yu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Nucleic Acid ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis ◽  
Abdominal Tuberculosis ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests

Background Abdominal tuberculosis is a severe extrapulmonary tuberculosis, which can lead to serious complications. Early diagnosis and treatment are very important for the prognosis and the diagnosis of abdominal tuberculosis is still difficult. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for abdominal tuberculosis using meta-analysis method. Methods We will search PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wanfang database for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of NAATs for abdominal tuberculosis until May 2020. We will include a systematic review and meta-analysis that evaluated the accuracy of NAATs for abdominal tuberculosis. Any types of study design with full text will be sought and included. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Stata version 15.0 with the midas command packages will be used to carry out meta-analyses. Results The results will provide clinical evidence for diagnostic accuracy of NAATs for abdominal tuberculosis, and this systematic review and meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. Conclusion This overview will provide evidence of NAATs for diagnosis of abdominal tuberculosis. Systematic review registration INPLASY202060030.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for Tuberculous Meningitis

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Pormohammad ◽  
Mohammad Javad Nasiri ◽  
Timothy D. McHugh ◽  
Seyed Mohammad Riahi ◽  
Nathan C. Bahr
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Nucleic Acid ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Tuberculous Meningitis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

ABSTRACTThe diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis (TBM) is difficult and poses a significant challenge to physicians worldwide. Recently, nucleic acid amplification (NAA) tests have shown promise for the diagnosis of TBM, although their performance has been variable. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of NAA tests with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples against that of culture as the reference standard or a combined reference standard (CRS) for TBM. We searched the Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for the relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Diagnostic accuracy measures (i.e., sensitivity and specificity) were pooled with a random-effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with STATA (version 14 IC; Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA), Meta-DiSc (version 1.4 for Windows; Cochrane Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain), and RevMan (version 5.3; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, the Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) software. Sixty-three studies comprising 1,381 cases of confirmed TBM and 5,712 non-TBM controls were included in the final analysis. These 63 studies were divided into two groups comprising 71 data sets (43 in-house tests and 28 commercial tests) that used culture as the reference standard and 24 data sets (21 in-house tests and 3 commercial tests) that used a CRS. Studies which used a culture reference standard had better pooled summary estimates than studies which used CRS. The overall pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of the NAA tests against culture were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75 to 87%), 99% (95% CI, 98 to 99%), 58.6 (95% CI, 35.3 to 97.3), and 0.19 (95% CI, 0.14 to 0.25), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, and NLR of NAA tests against CRS were 68% (95% CI, 41 to 87%), 98% (95% CI, 95 to 99%), 36.5 (95% CI, 15.6 to 85.3), and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.70), respectively. The analysis has demonstrated that the diagnostic accuracy of NAA tests is currently insufficient for them to replace culture as a lone diagnostic test. NAA tests may be used in combination with culture due to the advantage of time to result and in scenarios where culture tests are not feasible. Further work to improve NAA tests would benefit from the availability of standardized reference standards and improvements to the methodology.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document