ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
The Diagnostic Performance of Various Clinical Specimens for the Detection of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of RT-PCR Studies.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness in health workers: a cohort study conducted during the pandemic decline phase in five hospitals, affiliated to Al-Azhar University- Egypt.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Beyond Culture: Real-Time PCR Performance in Detecting Causative Pathogens and Key Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- COVID-19 Detection and Diagnosis Model on CT Scans Based on AI Techniques.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Herpesviruses and SARS-CoV-2: Viral Association with Oral Inflammatory Diseases.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnostic performance of numerous clinical specimens to diagnose COVID-19 through RT-PCR techniques is very important, and the test result outcome is still unclear. This review aimed to analyze the diagnostic performance of clinical samples for COVID-19 detection by RT-PCR through a systematic literature review process. METHODOLOGY: A compressive literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to November 2022. A snowball search on Google, Google Scholar, Research Gate, and MedRxiv, as well as bibliographic research, was performed to identify any other relevant articles. Observational studies that assessed the clinical usefulness of the RT-PCR technique in different human samples for the detection or screening of COVID-19 among patients or patient samples were considered for this review. The primary outcomes considered were sensitivity and specificity, while parameters such as positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and kappa coefficient were considered secondary outcomes.
resultsA total of 85 studies out of 10,213 non-duplicate records were included for the systematic review, of which 69 articles were considered for the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis indicated better pooled sensitivity with the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) than saliva (91.06% vs. 76.70%) and was comparable with the combined NPS/oropharyngeal swab (OPS; 92%). Nevertheless, specificity was observed to be better with saliva (98.27%) than the combined NPS/OPS (98.08%) and NPS (95.57%). The other parameters were comparable among different samples. The respiratory samples and throat samples showed a promising result relative to other specimens. The sensitivity and specificity of samples such as nasopharyngeal swabs, saliva, combined nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal, respiratory, sputum, broncho aspirate, throat swab, gargle, serum, and the mixed sample were found to be 91.06%, 76.70%, 92.00%, 99.44%, 86%, 96%, 94.4%, 95.3%, 73.63%, and above 98; and 95.57%, 98.27%, 98.08%, 100%, 37%, 100%, 100%, 97.6%, and above 97, respectively.
conclusionsNPS was observed to have relatively better sensitivity, but not specificity when compared with other clinical specimens. Head-to-head comparisons between the different samples and the time of sample collection are warranted to strengthen this evidence.
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.