A Systematic review on the specificity and sensitivity of the different diagnosis tests for SARS-CoV-2 /
A Systematic review on the specificity and sensitivity of the different diagnosis tests for SARS-CoV-2 /
Kyla Grace J. Lecias, Merielle A. Bairan, Gwyneth Balde, LeAnne M. Buenviaje, Anna Jasmine D. De Lima, Jennah Mae Gañalon, Bea Clarisse T. Lamorena, Alexandra Franchesca Olaso, Stephanie Mae P. Paaño, Julianna Marie R. Pineda and Jovi Chelo N. Samatra.
- Fairview, Quezon City: School of Medical Technology, FEU-NRMF, 2023.
- 61 pages: illustrations, tables; 28 cm.
Includes appendices and bibliographical references.
Abstract: Continuous developments have been made in molecular diagnostic techniques which were targeted towards SARS-CoV-2 infections due to the global pandemic. However, factors such as false positives and false negatives are most likely to occur even with recent studies and developments. This systematic review aims to determine the validity as well as compare currently approved diagnostics testes as to its sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate and false negative rate used in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review used the PRISMA guidelines as the foundation. Included studies were chosen according to the exclusion and inclusion criteria for studies from 2020 and onwards. Databases used were PubMed, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, ResearchGate and Google Scholar. To assess the risk of bias of the chosen studies, the Diagnostic Precision Study Quality Assessment Tool or the QUADAS-2 as recommended by Cochrane Collaboration was used. Out of 2,722 studies from the databases, 40 studies were included in this systematic review. Most of the studies used nasopharyngeal swabs as the sample type and RT-PCR have shown consistently high results as to the sensitivity (90.7% - 100%) and specificity (69.4%-100%) with nasopharyngeal swabs. RT-LAMP assay was found to be highly sensitive and specific with oropharyngeal samples (99.7% and 97.5%, respectively) but when compared to RT-PCR, the values of RT-PCR remains to be superior. Other diagnostic tests such as LFIA had varied results with regards to sensitivity (43%-89%) especially with the usage of plasma and serum samples. ELISA and CRISPR-based assays had high sensitivity and specificity (97.4%-98.11% and 51.30%-94.87%; 100% and 98.5%, respectively) as presented by the few studies included in the review. RT-PCR was found the most consistent and reliable out of the diagnostic methods included in the review. Nasopharyngeal swab samples in conjunction with RT-PCR proved to have the highest sensitivity and specificity with low values with regards to false positive and negative rate, which can accurately identify suspected individuals that are true positive and negative. However, RT-PCR with other samples types can return unreliable results such as with oropharyngeal swabs with reported low sensitivity. CRISPR-based assays can also be considered as an alternative but due to lack of studies that tackle its performance on SARS-CoV-2 assays, these claims are yet to be assessed and accepted for clinical use.
Thesis - School of Medical Technology
diagnostic test
gold standard
alternative sensitivity specificity
SARS-CoV-2
COVID-19
MT 2023 0010
Includes appendices and bibliographical references.
Abstract: Continuous developments have been made in molecular diagnostic techniques which were targeted towards SARS-CoV-2 infections due to the global pandemic. However, factors such as false positives and false negatives are most likely to occur even with recent studies and developments. This systematic review aims to determine the validity as well as compare currently approved diagnostics testes as to its sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate and false negative rate used in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review used the PRISMA guidelines as the foundation. Included studies were chosen according to the exclusion and inclusion criteria for studies from 2020 and onwards. Databases used were PubMed, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, ResearchGate and Google Scholar. To assess the risk of bias of the chosen studies, the Diagnostic Precision Study Quality Assessment Tool or the QUADAS-2 as recommended by Cochrane Collaboration was used. Out of 2,722 studies from the databases, 40 studies were included in this systematic review. Most of the studies used nasopharyngeal swabs as the sample type and RT-PCR have shown consistently high results as to the sensitivity (90.7% - 100%) and specificity (69.4%-100%) with nasopharyngeal swabs. RT-LAMP assay was found to be highly sensitive and specific with oropharyngeal samples (99.7% and 97.5%, respectively) but when compared to RT-PCR, the values of RT-PCR remains to be superior. Other diagnostic tests such as LFIA had varied results with regards to sensitivity (43%-89%) especially with the usage of plasma and serum samples. ELISA and CRISPR-based assays had high sensitivity and specificity (97.4%-98.11% and 51.30%-94.87%; 100% and 98.5%, respectively) as presented by the few studies included in the review. RT-PCR was found the most consistent and reliable out of the diagnostic methods included in the review. Nasopharyngeal swab samples in conjunction with RT-PCR proved to have the highest sensitivity and specificity with low values with regards to false positive and negative rate, which can accurately identify suspected individuals that are true positive and negative. However, RT-PCR with other samples types can return unreliable results such as with oropharyngeal swabs with reported low sensitivity. CRISPR-based assays can also be considered as an alternative but due to lack of studies that tackle its performance on SARS-CoV-2 assays, these claims are yet to be assessed and accepted for clinical use.
Thesis - School of Medical Technology
diagnostic test
gold standard
alternative sensitivity specificity
SARS-CoV-2
COVID-19
MT 2023 0010
