000			04228nam a22004337a 4500
999			_c12642 _d12642
001			MT 2023 0010
003			PILC
005			20240720153325.0
008			231006b xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_beng _cFEU-NRMF MEDICAL LIBRARY _erda
041			_aenglish
050			_aMT 2023 0010
245			_aA Systematic review on the specificity and sensitivity of the different diagnosis tests for SARS-CoV-2 / _cKyla 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.
260			_aFairview, Quezon City: _bSchool of Medical Technology, FEU-NRMF, _c2023.
300			_a61 pages: _billustrations, tables; _c28 cm.
336			_2rdacontent _atext
337			_2rdamedia _aunmediated
338			_2rdacarrier _avolume
504			_aIncludes appendices and bibliographical references.
520			_aAbstract: 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.
521			_aTHMT
650			_adiagnostic test
650			_agold standard
650			_aalternative sensitivity specificity
650			_aSARS-CoV-2
650			_aCOVID-19
700			_aLecias, Kyla Grace J. _eauthor
700			_aBairan, Merielle A. _eauthor
700			_aBalde, Gwyneth _eauthor
700			_aBuenviaje, LeAnne M. _eauthor
700			_aDe Lima, Anna Jasmine D. _eauthor
700			_aGañalon, Jennah Mae _eauthor
700			_aLamorena, Bea Clarisse T. _eauthor
700			_aOlaso, Alexandra Franchesca _eauthor
700			_aPaaño, Stephanie Mae P. _eauthor
700			_aPineda, Julianna Marie R. _eauthor
700			_aSamatra, Jovi Chelo N. _eauthor
942			_2lcc _cRU