SynthesisMetabolism: clinical and experimental2022
Systematic review with meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy for COVID-19 by mass spectrometry.
Synthesis in Metabolism: clinical and experimental, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of the Ishii Test for screening sarcopenia in older adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies.BMC geriatrics · 2024Pooled it
- Meta-Analysis of COVID-19 Metabolomics Identifies Variations in Robustness of Biomarkers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Pooled it
- Risk of incident diabetes after COVID-19 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Metabolism: clinical and experimental · 2022Pooled it
- Review
- Advantages of Metabolomics-Based Multivariate Machine Learning to Predict Disease Severity: Example of COVID.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- A Targeted LC-MRMMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2024Article
- Application of MALDI-TOF MS and machine learning for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Development of a High-Throughput Mass Spectrometry-Based SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassay.Analytical chemistry · 2024Article
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy Tests of COVID-19.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Multi-Omics Reveals Mechanisms of Partial Modulation of COVID-19 Dysregulation by Glucocorticoid Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Metabolomics Markers of COVID-19 Are Dependent on Collection Wave.Metabolites · 2022Article
- An integrated analysis and comparison of serum, saliva and sebum for COVID-19 metabolomics.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Untargeted saliva metabolomics by liquid chromatography-Mass spectrometry reveals markers of COVID-19 severity.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe global COVID-19 pandemic has led to extensive development in many fields, including the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection by mass spectrometry. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the accuracy of mass spectrometry diagnostic tests developed so far, across a wide range of biological matrices, and additionally to assess risks of bias and applicability in studies published to date.
method23 retrospective observational cohort studies were included in the systematic review using the PRISMA-DTA framework, with a total of 2858 COVID-19 positive participants and 2544 controls. Risks of bias and applicability were assessed via a QUADAS-2 questionnaire. A meta-analysis was also performed focusing on sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy and Youden's Index, in addition to assessing heterogeneity.
findingsSensitivity averaged 0.87 in the studies reviewed herein (interquartile range 0.81-0.96) and specificity 0.88 (interquartile range 0.82-0.98), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic summary curve of 0.93. By subgroup, the best diagnostic results were achieved by viral proteomic analyses of nasopharyngeal swabs and metabolomic analyses of plasma and serum. The performance of other sampling matrices (breath, sebum, saliva) was less good, indicating that these protocols are currently insufficiently mature for clinical application.
conclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates the potential for mass spectrometry and 'omics in achieving accurate test results for COVID-19 diagnosis, but also highlights the need for further work to optimize and harmonize practice across laboratories before these methods can be translated to clinical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.