Dataset Information

The diagnostic accuracy of isothermal nucleic acid point-of-care tests for human coronaviruses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Many recent studies reported coronavirus point-of-care tests (POCTs) based on isothermal amplification. However, the performances of these tests have not been systematically evaluated. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy was used as a guideline for conducting this systematic review. We searched peer-reviewed and preprint articles in PubMed, BioRxiv and MedRxiv up to 28 September 2020 to identify studies that provide data to calculate sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was applied for assessing quality of included studies and Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) was followed for reporting. We included 81 studies from 65 research articles on POCTs of SARS, MERS and COVID-19. Most studies had high risk of patient selection and index test bias but low risk in other domains. Diagnostic specificities were high (> 0.95) for included studies while sensitivities varied depending on type of assays and sample used. Most studies (n = 51) used reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) to diagnose coronaviruses. RT-LAMP of RNA purified from COVID-19 patient samples had pooled sensitivity at 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90-0.96). RT-LAMP of crude samples had substantially lower sensitivity at 0.78 (95% CI: 0.65-0.87). Abbott ID Now performance was similar to RT-LAMP of crude samples. Diagnostic performances by CRISPR and RT-LAMP on purified RNA were similar. Other diagnostic platforms including RT- recombinase assisted amplification (RT-RAA) and SAMBA-II also offered high sensitivity (> 0.95). Future studies should focus on the use of un-bias patient cohorts, double-blinded index test and detection assays that do not require RNA extraction.

SUBMITTER: Subsoontorn P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7749114 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The 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.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnostic strategy requires 6 rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). Point-of-care nucleic acid tests (POC NATs) are costlier, less sensitive, but more specific than RDTs.MethodsWe simulated a 1-time screening process in Côte d'Ivoire (CI; undiagnosed prevalence: 1.8%), comparing WHO- and CI-recommended RDT-based strategies (RDT-WHO, RDT-CI) and an alternative: POC NAT to resolve RDT discordancy (NAT-Resolve). Costs included assays (RDT: $1.47; POC NAT: $27.92), antiretroviral therapy ($6-$22/month), and HIV care ($27-$38/month). We modeled 2 sensitivity/specificity scenarios: high-performing (RDT: 99.9%/99.1%; POC NAT: 95.0%/100.0%) and low-performing (RDT: 91.1%/82.9%; POC NAT: 93.3%/99.5%). Outcomes included true-positive (TP), false-positive (FP), true-negative (TN), or false-negative (FN) results; life expectancy; costs; and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs: $/year of life saved [YLS]; threshold ≤$1720/YLS [per-capita gross domestic product]).ResultsModel-projected impacts of misdiagnoses were 4.4 years lost (FN vs TP; range, 3.0-13.0 years) and a $5800 lifetime cost increase (FP vs TN; range, $590-$14 680). In the high-performing scenario, misdiagnoses/10 000 000 tested were lowest for NAT-Resolve vs RDT-based strategies (FN: 409 vs 413-429; FP: 14 vs 21-28). Strategies had similar life expectancy (228 months) and lifetime costs ($220/person) among all tested; ICERs were $3450/YLS (RDT-CI vs RDT-WHO) and $120 910/YLS (NAT-Resolve vs RDT-CI). In the low-performing scenario, misdiagnoses were higher (FN: 22 845-30 357; FP: 83 724-112 702) and NAT-Resolve was cost-saving.ConclusionsWe projected substantial clinical and economic impacts of misdiagnoses. Using POC NAT to resolve RDT discordancy generated the fewest misdiagnoses and was not cost-effective in high-performing scenarios, but may be an important adjunct to existing RDT-based strategies in low-performing scenarios.

Project description:BackgroundPoint-of-care tests provide a plausible diagnostic strategy for hepatitis C infection in economically impoverished areas. However, their utility depends upon the overall performance of individual tests.MethodsA literature search was conducted using the metasearch engine Mettā, a query interface for retrieving articles from five leading medical databases. Studies were included if they employed point-of-care tests to detect antibodies of hepatitis C virus and compared the results with reference tests. Two reviewers performed a quality assessment of the studies and extracted data for estimating test accuracy.FindingsThirty studies that had evaluated 30 tests fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The overall pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood-ratio, negative likelihood-ratio and diagnostic odds ratio for all tests were 97.4% (95% CI: 95.9-98.4), 99.5% (99.2-99.7), 80.17 (55.35-116.14), 0.03 (0.02-0.04), and 3032.85 (1595.86-5763.78), respectively. This suggested a high pooled accuracy for all studies. We found substantial heterogeneity between studies, but none of the subgroups investigated could account for the heterogeneity. Genotype diversity of HCV had no or minimal influence on test performance. Of the seven tests evaluated in the meta-regression model, OraQuick had the highest test sensitivity and specificity and showed better performance than a third generation enzyme immunoassay in seroconversion panels. The next highest test sensitivities and specificities were from TriDot and SDBioline, followed by Genedia and Chembio. The Spot and Multiplo tests produced poor test sensitivities but high test specificities. Nine of the remaining 23 tests produced poor test sensitivities and specificities and/or showed poor performances in seroconversion panels, while 14 tests had high test performances with diagnostic odds ratios ranging from 590.70 to 28822.20.ConclusionsPerformances varied widely among individual point-of-care tests for diagnosis of hepatitis C virus infection. Physicians should consider this while using specific tests in clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundRapid point-of-care tests provide plausible diagnostic strategy for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) in low resource areas. However, their utility depends upon their overall performance. Our objective was to meta-analyze the diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for HBsAg.MethodsLiterature search was done with the help of a metasearch engine Mett?, a query interface for retrieving articles from five leading medical databases. Studies that employed rapid point-of-care tests for detection of HBsAg and compared the results with reference test were included. Two reviewers performed quality assessment of the studies and extracted data for estimating test accuracy. Twenty-seven studies were meta-analyzed and stratified by multiple parameters.ResultsTwenty-seven studies had evaluated 49 test brands and generated 76 data points. Sensitivity of individual tests varied widely and were heterogeneous (range 43.5%-99.8%); while specificity estimates were more robust and close to 100% (range 90%-100%). Overall pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR and diagnostic odds ratio for all tests were 97.1% (95% CI, 96.1%-97.9%), 99.9% (CI, 99.8%-100%), 118.4 (CI, 84.7-165.5), 0.032 (CI, 0.023-0.045) and 4094.7 (CI, 2504.1-6600.8) respectively. This suggested high pooled accuracy for all studies. We found substantial heterogeneity between studies. Three factors (study location, reference standard and study score) appeared most strongly associated with test estimates and observed heterogeneity. The Determine test showed consistency in performance in studies done across developed and developing countries and the Determine and the BinaxNOW tests had significantly higher estimates than pooled estimates of remaining tests. Tests revealed analytical sensitivity of 4 IU/ml against manufacturer's claim of 0.5 IU/ml; reduced sensitivity with HBsAg mutants and poor performance in seroconversion panels.ConclusionsTests with better analytical sensitivity need to be developed and their feasibility and outcomes in various clinical settings need to be addressed.

Dataset Information

The diagnostic accuracy of isothermal nucleic acid point-of-care tests for human coronaviruses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets