A meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of real-time PCR for diagnosing novel coronavirus infections

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Novel coronavirus (nCoV) belongs to the Coronaviridae family, which includes the virus that causes SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome. However, infection source, transmission route, and host of nCoV have not yet been thoroughly characterized. In some cases, nCoV presented a limited person-to-person transmission. Therefore, early diagnosis of nCoV may be of importance for reducing the spread of disease in public. Methods for nCoV diagnosis involve smear dyeing inspection, culture identification, and real-time PCR detection, all of which are proved highly effective. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of real-time PCR for diagnosing nCoV infection. Fifteen articles conformed to the inclusion and exclusion criteria for further meta-analysis on the basis of a wide range of publications searched from databases involving PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Medline, ISI. We analyzed the stability and publication bias as well as examined the heterogeneity inspection of real-time PCR detection in contrast to smear staining and culture identification. The fixed-effect model was adopted in our meta-analysis. Our result demonstrated that the combination of real-time PCR and Real-time PCR for nCoV detection smear diagnostics yielded an odds ratio (OR) = 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.51-2.41, Z = 5.43, P < 0.05, while the combination of real-time PCR and culture identification yielded OR = 2.44, 95%CI = 1.77-3.37, Z = 5.41, P < 0.05. Therefore, we propose real-time PCR as an efficient method that offers an auxiliary support for future nCoV diagnosis.

Evaluation of coronavirus in tears and conjunctival secretions of patients with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection

“…Some scholars have found that RT‐PCR is effective for diagnosing novel coronavirus through meta‐analysis, is significantly better than smear‐dyeing inspection and culture identification, and it has become the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronavirus infections. However, there are inevitably many false positive and false negative results, which are often caused by sample contamination and damage to genetic material 18 . In 2003, some studies reported on the detection of virus particles in conjunctival secretions among SARS patients 19 .…”

Practical Guidance for Clinical Microbiology Laboratories: Viruses Causing Acute Respiratory Tract Infections

“…There are a variety of drawbacks to using cell culture compared to molecular methods, and many virology laboratories have opted to discontinue viral culture in the laboratory for these reasons. It is well established that cell culture has a lower sensitivity than molecular techniques (191,192), the turnaround time and hands-on time required to perform cell culture compared to molecular testing are increased, and the technical expertise for performing cell culture is often not available. Traditional tube cultures are slow and can take up to 10 days for detection of respiratory infections (36).…”

Assessment of the quality of systematic reviews on COVID‐19: A comparative study of previous coronavirus outbreaks

“…No additional SRs were identified on Google Scholar. Thus, 49 SRs 7‐55 were finally included in this study for methodological quality assessment. The flow diagram of the study selection process is shown in Figure 1.…”