Diagnostic performance of different sampling approaches for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background The comparative performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of different clinical specimen collection methods. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, medRxiv, bioRxiv , SSRN, and Research Square from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 16, 2020. We included original clinical studies that examined the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs and any additional respiratory specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals presenting in ambulatory care. Studies without data on paired samples, or those that only examined different samples from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases were not useful for examining diagnostic performance of a test and were excluded. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was examined using random effects models and double arcsine transformation. Findings Of the 5577 studies identified in our search, 23 studies including 7973 participants with 16 762 respiratory samples were included. Respiratory specimens examined in these studies included 7973 nasopharyngeal swabs, 1622 nasal swabs, 6110 saliva samples, 338 throat swabs, and 719 pooled nasal and throat swabs. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard, pooled nasal and throat swabs gave the highest sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 93–100), whereas lower sensitivities were achieved by saliva (85%, 75–93) and nasal swabs (86%, 77–93) and a much lower sensitivity by throat swabs (68%, 35–94). A comparably high positive predictive value was obtained by pooled nasal and throat (97%, 90–100) and nasal swabs (96%, 87–100) and a slightly lower positive predictive value by saliva (93%, 88–97). Throat swabs have the lowest positive predictive value of 75% (95% CI 45–96). Comparably high specificities (range 97–99%) and negative predictive value (range 95–99%) were observed among different clinical specimens. Comparison between health-care-worker collection and self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs showed comparable diagnostic performance. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pooled nasal and throat swabs and throat swabs, whereas moderate to substantial heterogeneity ( I 2 ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs. Interpretation Our review suggests that, compared with the gold standard of nasopharyngeal swabs, pooled nasal and throat swabs offered the best diagnostic performance of the alternative sampling approaches for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory care. Saliva and nasal swabs gave comparable and very good diagnostic performance and are clinically...

Saliva as a Source of Biomarkers for Periodontitis and Periimplantitis

“…Since it contains, e.g., hormones, growth factors, enzymes, antibodies as well as microbes and their products, it might be useful in the early detection of systemic diseases, like cancer, autoimmune disorders, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or virus-related diseases (7,8). The diagnostic potential for saliva in ambulatory care and under self-collection conditions has recently been summarized in a meta-analysis for SarS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing (9).…”

Diagnostic performance and characteristics of anterior nasal collection for the SARS-CoV-2 antigen test: a prospective study

“…Although paired comparison between different swab samples lacked in this study, our study demonstrated that anterior nasal samples provided a lower antigen test sensitivity than our previous study evaluating nasopharyngeal samples 3 . Nevertheless, this lower sensitivity of 72.5% may be acceptable since according to the reported systematic review, sensitivity of nasal swab was 86% in comparison to nasopharyngeal swab by RT-PCR 9 . The sensitivity of antigen tests is largely influenced by the viral load in collected samples 10 – 13 .…”

Efficacy of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine for Treating COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of RCTs

“…The elimination criteria were as follows: (1) duplicate studies; (2) studies in which the experimental group was subjected to other TCM therapies, such as acupuncture, moxibustion, cupping, massage, qigong, and taiji therapy, in addition to the CWM; (3) studies in which the control group was treated with a form of TCM or integrated medicine; (4) studies in which data could not be extracted.…”

“…Since the occurrence of the novel coronavirus pneumonia (NCP) in December 2019, the situation has increasingly become severe, and the disease continues to spread, which has had a significant impact on health and lives of people (1). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious viral pneumonia caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (2). People are usually susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, and there are different clinical manifestations (3).…”