Dataset Information

Systematic review with meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy for COVID-19 by mass spectrometry.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The global COVID-19 pandemic has led to extensive development in many fields, including the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection by mass spectrometry. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the accuracy of mass spectrometry diagnostic tests developed so far, across a wide range of biological matrices, and additionally to assess risks of bias and applicability in studies published to date.

Method

23 retrospective observational cohort studies were included in the systematic review using the PRISMA-DTA framework, with a total of 2858 COVID-19 positive participants and 2544 controls. Risks of bias and applicability were assessed via a QUADAS-2 questionnaire. A meta-analysis was also performed focusing on sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy and Youden's Index, in addition to assessing heterogeneity.

Findings

Sensitivity averaged 0.87 in the studies reviewed herein (interquartile range 0.81-0.96) and specificity 0.88 (interquartile range 0.82-0.98), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic summary curve of 0.93. By subgroup, the best diagnostic results were achieved by viral proteomic analyses of nasopharyngeal swabs and metabolomic analyses of plasma and serum. The performance of other sampling matrices (breath, sebum, saliva) was less good, indicating that these protocols are currently insufficiently mature for clinical application.

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates the potential for mass spectrometry and 'omics in achieving accurate test results for COVID-19 diagnosis, but also highlights the need for further work to optimize and harmonize practice across laboratories before these methods can be translated to clinical applications.

SUBMITTER: Spick M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8548837 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo 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.

Project description:Muscle ultrasound is an emerging tool for diagnosing sarcopenia. This review aims to summarize the current knowledge on the diagnostic test accuracy of ultrasound for the diagnosis of sarcopenia. We collected data from Ovid Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Diagnostic test accuracy studies using muscle ultrasound to detect sarcopenia were included. Bivariate random-effects models based on sensitivity and specificity pairs were used to calculate the pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity and the area under the curves (AUCs) of summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC), if possible. We screened 7332 publications and included 17 studies with 2143 participants (mean age range: 52.6-82.8 years). All included studies had a high risk of bias. The study populations, reference standards and ultrasound measurement methods varied across the studies. Lower extremity muscles were commonly studied, whereas muscle thickness (MT) was the most widely measured parameter, followed by the cross-sectional area (CSA). The MTs of the gastrocnemius, rectus femoris, tibialis anterior, soleus, rectus abdominis and geniohyoid muscles showed a moderate diagnostic accuracy for sarcopenia (SROC-AUC 0.83, 8 studies; SROC-AUC 0.78, 5 studies; AUC 0.82, 1 study; AUC 0.76-0.78, 2 studies; AUC 0.76, 1 study; and AUC 0.79, 1 study, respectively), whereas the MTs of vastus intermedius, quadriceps femoris and transversus abdominis muscles showed a low diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.67-0.71, 3 studies; SROC-AUC 0.64, 4 studies; and AUC 0.68, 1 study, respectively). The CSA of rectus femoris, biceps brachii muscles and gastrocnemius fascicle length also showed a moderate diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.70-0.90, 3 studies; 0.81, 1 study; and 0.78-0.80, 1 study, respectively), whereas the echo intensity (EI) of rectus femoris, vastus intermedius, quadriceps femoris and biceps brachii muscles showed a low diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.52-0.67, 2 studies; 0.48-0.50, 1 study; 0.43-0.49, 1 study; and 0.69, 1 study, respectively). The combination of CSA and EI of biceps brachii or rectus femoris muscles was better than either CSA or EI alone for diagnosing sarcopenia. Muscle ultrasound shows a low-to-moderate diagnostic test accuracy for sarcopenia diagnosis depending on different ultrasound parameters, measured muscles, reference standards and study populations. The combination of muscle quality indicators (e.g., EI) and muscle quantity indicators (e.g., MT) might provide better diagnostic test accuracy.