Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32659413›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of infection control2021

Systematic review with meta-analysis of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for COVID-19.

Beatriz Böger, Mariana M Fachi, Raquel O Vilhena, Alexandre F Cobre, Fernanda S Tonin, Roberto Pontarolo

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of infection control, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 258 papers, 27 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
258citing papers in PubMed, 27 pooled it
48.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

258 citing papers in PubMed, 27 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 506 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Are Pre-Hospitalization ECG Abnormalities Associated With Increased Mortality in COVID-19 Patients? A Quantitative Systematic Literature Review.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Returning to Work after the COVID-19 Pandemic Earthquake: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Auxiliary Screening COVID-19 by Serology.Frontiers in public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

198 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Beatriz BögerPharmaceutical Sciences Postgraduate Program, Health Sciences Sector, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Mariana M FachiPharmaceutical Sciences Postgraduate Program, Health Sciences Sector, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Raquel O VilhenaDepartment of Pharmacy, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Alexandre F CobrePharmaceutical Sciences Postgraduate Program, Health Sciences Sector, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Fernanda S ToninPharmaceutical Sciences Postgraduate Program, Health Sciences Sector, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Roberto PontaroloDepartment of Pharmacy, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil. Electronic address: pontarolo@ufpr.br.
Universidade Federal do Paraná · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo collate the evidence on the accuracy parameters of all available diagnostic methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2.

methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. Searches were conducted in Pubmed and Scopus (April 2020). Studies reporting data on sensitivity or specificity of diagnostic tests for COVID-19 using any human biological sample were included.

resultsSixteen studies were evaluated. Meta-analysis showed that computed tomography has high sensitivity (91.9% [89.8%-93.7%]), but low specificity (25.1% [21.0%-29.5%]). The combination of IgM and IgG antibodies demonstrated promising results for both parameters (84.5% [82.2%-86.6%]; 91.6% [86.0%-95.4%], respectively). For RT-PCR tests, rectal stools/swab, urine, and plasma were less sensitive while sputum (97.2% [90.3%-99.7%]) presented higher sensitivity for detecting the virus.

conclusionsRT-PCR remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in sputum samples. However, the combination of different diagnostic tests is highly recommended to achieve adequate sensitivity and specificity.

Indexed as

COVID-19 Nucleic Acid TestingCOVID-19 Serological TestingAntibodies, ViralCoronavirus Envelope ProteinsCoronavirus RNA-Dependent RNA PolymeraseCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MLungSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedAntibodies, ViralCoronavirus Envelope ProteinsCoronavirus RNA-Dependent RNA Polymeraseenvelope protein, SARS-CoV-2Immunoglobulin GImmunoglobulin MNSP12 protein, SARS-CoV-2CoronavirusEvidenceSARS-CoV-2SensitivitySpecificity

Identifiers

PMID32659413
PMCPMC7350782
OpenAlexW3041626911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.