Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem:
http://conacyt.repositorioinstitucional.mx/jspui/handle/1000/8041| A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic accuracy tests of COVID-19 | |
| Luis Daniel Goyzueta Mamani Juan Jeferson Vilca Alosilla Alexsandro Galdino Ricardo Andrez Machado de Ávila Mayron Antonio Candia Puma Katiusca Coronel Monje Rodolfo Cordeiro Giunchetti Eduardo Coelho Miguel Angel Chávez Fumagalli | |
| Acceso Abierto | |
| Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas | |
| https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.29.22282895 | |
| https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.29.22282895v1 | |
| Abstract In this work, we report a systematic review and meta-analysis that seeks to analyze the accuracy of diagnostic tests for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this article is to detail the scientific findings based on diagnostic tests of the last years when the pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) occurred. Searches for published studies were carried out in the PubMed database between the years 2020 and 2021 for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Ninety-nine scientific articles that met the criteria were examined and accepted in the meta-analysis, and the diagnostic accuracy was evaluated through specificity and sensitivity. Molecular tests [Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)] showed better performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity when compared to serological tests [Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassays (CMIA), and Fluorescence immunoassay (FIA)], which showed higher specificity, mainly for the detection of IgG antibodies; however, they showed sensitivity <90%. In addition, the antiviral neutralization bioassay (ANB) diagnostic test demonstrated high potential for the diagnosis of COVID-19, since it obtained the highest area under the curve restricted to the false-positive rates (AUCFPR) of 0.984. It is settled that the different diagnostic tests have been efficiently adapted for the detection of SARS-CoV-2; however, their performance still needs to be optimized to control future outbreaks of COVID-19, which will also serve to help the control of future infectious agents. | |
| bioRxiv | |
| 29-11-2022 | |
| Preimpreso | |
| Inglés | |
| Público en general | |
| VIRUS RESPIRATORIOS | |
| Aparece en las colecciones: | Materiales de Consulta y Comunicados Técnicos |
Cargar archivos:
| Fichero | Tamaño | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic accuracy tests of COVID-19.pdf | 4.59 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizar/Abrir |