A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy Tests of COVID-19

• Published in: Diagnostics (Basel) Vol. 13; no. 9; p. 1549
• Main Authors: Vilca-Alosilla, Juan Jeferson, Candia-Puma, Mayron Antonio, Coronel-Monje, Katiusca, Goyzueta-Mamani, Luis Daniel, Galdino, Alexsandro Sobreira, Machado-de-Ávila, Ricardo Andrez, Giunchetti, Rodolfo Cordeiro, Ferraz Coelho, Eduardo Antonio, Chávez-Fumagalli, Miguel Angel
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 26-04-2023; MDPI
• Subjects: Accuracy; Analysis; Antigens; Antiviral agents; Coronaviruses; COVID-19 diagnostic tests; COVID-19 vaccines; diagnostic tests; Disease transmission; Enzymes; Fatalities; Health aspects; Hospitalization; Immunoassay; Infections; Lungs; Medical tests; Meta-analysis; Patients; SARS-CoV-2; Search strategies; sensitivity; Serology; Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; specificity; Systematic Review; Thrombosis; United States > US; meta-analysis; specificity; SARS-CoV-2; diagnostic tests; sensitivity; systematic review
• ISSN: 2075-4418; 2075-4418
• DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13091549

In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis that aims to evaluate the reliability of coronavirus disease diagnostic tests in 2019 (COVID-19). This article seeks to describe the scientific discoveries made because of diagnostic tests conducted in recent years during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Between 2020 and 2021, searches for published papers on the COVID-19 diagnostic were made in the PubMed database. Ninety-nine scientific articles that satisfied the requirements were analyzed and included in the meta-analysis, and the specificity and sensitivity of the diagnostic accuracy were assessed. When compared to serological tests such as the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), and chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA), molecular tests such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) performed better in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, the area under the curve restricted to the false-positive rates (AUC
) of 0.984 obtained by the antiviral neutralization bioassay (ANB) diagnostic test revealed significant potential for the identification of COVID-19. It has been established that the various diagnostic tests have been effectively adapted for the detection of SARS-CoV-2; nevertheless, their performance still must be enhanced to contain potential COVID-19 outbreaks, which will also help contain potential infectious agent outbreaks in the future.