Impact of sampling site on diagnostic test accuracy of RT-PCR in diagnosing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection since the emergence of omicron: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Saal-Bauernschubert, L.; Wagner, C.; Fomenko, A.; Daehne, T.; Bora, A.-M.; Janka, H.; Stangl, S.; Skoetz, N.; Weibel, S.
Show abstract
Nasopharyngeal sampling (NP) is the routine standard for SASR-CoV-2 detection using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). In this systematic review, we assessed diagnostic test accuracy of alternative sampling sites compared to NP for RT-PCR testing of Omicron (sub)-variants. We systematically searched for studies from January 2022 until February 2023 investigating any type of respiratory sample for RT-PCR in people with suspected, known, or known absence of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection. Data were pooled for each comparison using the bivariate model, sensitivity and specificity was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2 tool, certainty of evidence with GRADE. We included three cohort-type cross-sectional studies (1,003 participants). Saliva versus NP sampling in three studies showed a sensitivity of 92% (95% CI 87% to 96%) and a specificity of 94% (95% CI 83% to 98%). AN versus NP sampling in one study showed a sensitivity of 90% (95% CI 82% to 95%) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI 95% to 100%). Certainty of evidence for sensitivity and specificity of both comparisons was low to very low. Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about accuracy of different sampling sites for RT-PCR.
Matching journals
The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Meta-Analysis of Robustness of COVID-19 Diagnostic Kits During Early Pandemic 96%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 93%
- An Analysis of Controlled Human Infection Studies Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of McIsaac and Centor score in patients presenting to secondary care with Pharyngitis 93%
- Self-testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection with rapid antigen tests 93%
- Review and methodological analysis of trials currently testing treatment and prevention options for the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) globally. 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Systematic review and meta-analysis 96%
- Susceptibility and infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 in children versus adults, by variant (wild-type, Alpha, Delta): a systematic review and meta-analysis of household contact studies 94%
- Protocol for the systematic review of the Pneumocystis jirovecii -associated pneumonia in non-HIV immunocompromised patients 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- The TARCiS statement: Guidance on terminology, application, and reporting of citation searching 94%
- Prophylaxis for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis 93%
- Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests in pre-/asymptomatic close contacts of individuals with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance evaluation of the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 & Flu A/B Test in diagnosing COVID-19 and influenza in patients with respiratory symptoms 91%
- Sensitivity of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay as an aid in determining previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 90%
- A rapid, high-sensitivity SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid immunoassay to aid diagnosis of acute COVID-19 at the point of care 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.