Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34715115›Full record

SynthesisMetabolism: clinical and experimental2022

Systematic review with meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy for COVID-19 by mass spectrometry.

Matt Spick, Holly M Lewis, Michael J Wilde, Christopher Hopley, Jim Huggett, Melanie J Bailey

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. A Targeted LC-MRMMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Matt SpickFaculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK.
Holly M LewisSurrey Ion Beam Centre, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK.
Michael J WildeSchool of Chemistry, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.
Christopher HopleyNational Measurement Laboratory, LGC, Queens Road, Teddington TW11 0LY, UK.
Jim HuggettNational Measurement Laboratory, LGC, Queens Road, Teddington TW11 0LY, UK; School of Biosciences and Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK.
Melanie J BaileyFaculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK; Surrey Ion Beam Centre, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK. Electronic address: m.bailey@surrey.ac.uk.
University of Surrey · GBNational Physical Laboratory · GBUniversity of Leicester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansMass SpectrometrySensitivity and SpecificityCOVID-19DiagnosticsMass spectrometryMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34715115
PMCPMC8548837
OpenAlexW3210258259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.