|New and Improved! EvidenceAlerts has been re-designed to optimize function on all media devices. Content, alerting and search functions remain the same, but appearance on tablets and smart phones has been enhanced. Feedback most welcome!|
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.
|General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US)|
|Family Medicine (FM)/General Practice (GP)|
This is very important article. There are many diagnostic modalities for COVID-19. We have to choose the diagnostic tool with high accuracy. The use of systematic ways in finding and appraising the risk of bias is the strength of this review. This review concludes that 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. The use of this recommendation should be further explored in real-world clinical setting.