Comparison of PCR test accuracy with laboratory data and CT SCAN in COVID-19: A systematic review
M. Vali, A. Mirahmadizadeh, Z. Maleki, F. Goudarzi, A. Abedinzade, H. Ghaem
{"title":"Comparison of PCR test accuracy with laboratory data and CT SCAN in COVID-19: A systematic review","authors":"M. Vali, A. Mirahmadizadeh, Z. Maleki, F. Goudarzi, A. Abedinzade, H. Ghaem","doi":"10.30476/jhsss.2020.87530.1113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Given the novelty of COVID-19, reviewing diagnostic methods can be of great help to community health policymakers. Considering the importance of diagnosing COVID-19 and the need for reducing the number of false positive and false negative cases that appear to be different in various diagnostic methods, this systematic review aimed at comparison of PCR test accuracy with laboratory data and CT SCAN in COVID-19. Methods: In this systematic review, EMBASE (Elsevier, 2018), MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine, 2018), Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics, 2018b), and Google Scholar data bases were searched for the studies published prior to 3 April 2020. Based on the inclusion criteria, 20 out of 859 primarily screened studies were finally assessed. Results: The results indicated that the laboratory diagnosis of viral nucleic acid could have false-negative results, and serological testing of virus-specific IgG and IgM antibodies should be used as an option for diagnosis. Moreover, chest Computerized Tomography (CT) was found to be more sensitive in comparison to Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) (98% vs. 71%). Hence, the articles offered the combined use of chest CT, SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, and multiplex PCR. Conclusion: Follow-up RT-PCR and chest CT are necessary in COVID-19. In addition, serological testing of virus-specific IgG and IgM antibodies along with laboratory diagnosis of viral nucleic acid can lead to the highly sensitive and accurate diagnosis. Moreover, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) is one of the cost-effective methods in epidemic conditions in low- and middle-income countries. © 2021 Shriaz University of Medical Sciences. All Rights Reserved.","PeriodicalId":16034,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health sciences and surveillance system","volume":"9 1","pages":"2-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of health sciences and surveillance system","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30476/jhsss.2020.87530.1113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Given the novelty of COVID-19, reviewing diagnostic methods can be of great help to community health policymakers. Considering the importance of diagnosing COVID-19 and the need for reducing the number of false positive and false negative cases that appear to be different in various diagnostic methods, this systematic review aimed at comparison of PCR test accuracy with laboratory data and CT SCAN in COVID-19. Methods: In this systematic review, EMBASE (Elsevier, 2018), MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine, 2018), Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics, 2018b), and Google Scholar data bases were searched for the studies published prior to 3 April 2020. Based on the inclusion criteria, 20 out of 859 primarily screened studies were finally assessed. Results: The results indicated that the laboratory diagnosis of viral nucleic acid could have false-negative results, and serological testing of virus-specific IgG and IgM antibodies should be used as an option for diagnosis. Moreover, chest Computerized Tomography (CT) was found to be more sensitive in comparison to Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) (98% vs. 71%). Hence, the articles offered the combined use of chest CT, SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, and multiplex PCR. Conclusion: Follow-up RT-PCR and chest CT are necessary in COVID-19. In addition, serological testing of virus-specific IgG and IgM antibodies along with laboratory diagnosis of viral nucleic acid can lead to the highly sensitive and accurate diagnosis. Moreover, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) is one of the cost-effective methods in epidemic conditions in low- and middle-income countries. © 2021 Shriaz University of Medical Sciences. All Rights Reserved.
PCR检测与实验室数据和CT扫描在COVID-19中的准确性比较:一项系统综述
背景:鉴于COVID-19的新颖性,审查诊断方法可以为社区卫生政策制定者提供很大帮助。考虑到COVID-19诊断的重要性,以及需要减少各种诊断方法中出现的假阳性和假阴性病例的数量,本系统综述旨在比较PCR检测与实验室数据和CT扫描在COVID-19中的准确性。方法:在本系统综述中,检索EMBASE (Elsevier, 2018)、MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine, 2018)、Scopus、ProQuest、Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics, 2018b)和谷歌Scholar数据库,检索2020年4月3日之前发表的研究。根据纳入标准,859项初步筛选的研究中有20项最终被评估。结果:病毒核酸的实验室诊断可能出现假阴性结果,应将病毒特异性IgG和IgM抗体的血清学检测作为诊断的选择。此外,胸部计算机断层扫描(CT)与逆转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)相比更敏感(98%对71%)。因此,文章提出联合使用胸部CT、SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR和多重PCR。结论:对COVID-19进行随访RT-PCR和胸部CT检查是必要的。此外,血清学检测病毒特异性IgG和IgM抗体,结合实验室病毒核酸诊断,可获得高度敏感和准确的诊断。此外,酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)是低收入和中等收入国家流行病条件下具有成本效益的方法之一。©2021 Shriaz医科大学。版权所有。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。