Dataset Information

COVID-19: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of commercial assays registered in Brazil.

ABSTRACT: The accuracy of commercially available tests for COVID-19 in Brazil remains unclear. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to describe the accuracy of available tests to detect COVID-19 in Brazil. We searched at the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) online platform to describe the pooled sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC) for detection of IgM/IgG antibodies and for tests using naso/oropharyngeal swabs in the random-effects models. We identified 16 tests registered, mostly rapid-tests. Pooled diagnostic accuracy measures [95%CI] were: (i) for IgM antibodies Se=82% [76-87]; Sp=97% [96-98]; DOR=168 [92-305] and SROC=0.98 [0.96-0.99]; (ii) for IgG antibodies Se=97% [90-99]; Sp=98% [97-99]; DOR=1994 [385-10334] and SROC=0.99 [0.98-1.00]; and (iii) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 by antigen or molecular assays in naso/oropharyngeal swabs Se=97% [85-99]; Sp=99% [77-100]; DOR=2649 [30-233056] and SROC=0.99 [0.98-1.00]. These tests can be helpful for emergency testing during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. However, it is important to highlight the high rate of false negative results from tests which detect SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibodies in the initial course of the disease and the scarce evidence-based validation results published in Brazil. Future studies addressing the diagnostic performance of tests for COVID-19 in the Brazilian population are urgently needed.

SUBMITTER: Castro R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7165277 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar - Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

COVID-19: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of commercial assays registered in Brazil.

Castro Rodolfo R Luz Paula M PM Wakimoto Mayumi D MD Veloso Valdilea G VG Grinsztejn Beatriz B Perazzo Hugo H

The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases 20200301 2

The accuracy of commercially available tests for COVID-19 in Brazil remains unclear. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to describe the accuracy of available tests to detect COVID-19 in Brazil. We searched at the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) online platform to describe the pooled sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC) for detection of IgM/IgG antibodies and for tests using naso/oropharyngeal swab ...[more]

PMID: 32330437

Similar Datasets

Project description:Conventional radiography (CR) is primarily utilized for fracture diagnosis. Artificial intelligence (AI) for CR is a rapidly growing field aimed at enhancing efficiency and increasing diagnostic accuracy. However, the diagnostic performance of commercially available AI fracture detection solutions (CAAI-FDS) for CR in various anatomical regions, their synergy with human assessment, as well as the influence of industry funding on reported accuracy are unknown. Peer-reviewed diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies were identified through a systematic review on Pubmed and Embase. Diagnostic performance measures were extracted especially for different subgroups such as product, type of rater (stand-alone AI, human unaided, human aided), funding, and anatomical region. Pooled measures were obtained with a bivariate random effects model. The impact of rater was evaluated with comparative meta-analysis. Seventeen DTA studies of seven CAAI-FDS analyzing 38,978 x-rays with 8,150 fractures were included. Stand-alone AI studies (n = 15) evaluated five CAAI-FDS; four with good sensitivities (> 90%) and moderate specificities (80-90%) and one with very poor sensitivity (< 60%) and excellent specificity (> 95%). Pooled sensitivities were good to excellent, and specificities were moderate to good in all anatomical regions (n = 7) apart from ribs (n = 4; poor sensitivity / moderate specificity) and spine (n = 4; excellent sensitivity / poor specificity). Funded studies (n = 4) had higher sensitivity (+ 5%) and lower specificity (-4%) than non-funded studies (n = 11). Sensitivity did not differ significantly between stand-alone AI and human AI aided ratings (p = 0.316) but specificity was significantly higher the latter group (p < 0.001). Sensitivity was significant lower in human unaided compared to human AI aided respectively stand-alone AI ratings (both p ≤ 0.001); specificity was higher in human unaided ratings compared to stand-alone AI (p < 0.001) and showed no significant differences AI aided ratings (p = 0.316). The study demonstrates good diagnostic accuracy across most CAAI-FDS and anatomical regions, with the highest performance achieved when used in conjunction with human assessment. Diagnostic accuracy appears lower for spine and rib fractures. The impact of industry funding on reported performance is small.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.Results5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).ConclusionHigher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179452.

Project description:Different clones, protocol conditions, instruments, and scoring/readout methods may pose challenges in introducing different PD-L1 assays for immunotherapy. The diagnostic accuracy of using different PD-L1 assays interchangeably for various purposes is unknown. The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to address PD-L1 assay interchangeability based on assay diagnostic accuracy for established clinical uses/purposes. A systematic search of the MEDLINE database using PubMed platform was conducted using "PD-L1" as a search term for 01/01/2015 to 31/08/2018, with limitations "English" and "human". 2,515 abstracts were reviewed to select for original contributions only. 57 studies on comparison of two or more PD-L1 assays were fully reviewed. 22 publications were selected for meta-analysis. Additional data were requested from authors of 20/22 studies in order to enable the meta-analysis. Modified GRADE and QUADAS-2 criteria were used for grading published evidence and designing data abstraction templates for extraction by reviewers. PRISMA was used to guide reporting of systematic review and meta-analysis and STARD 2015 for reporting diagnostic accuracy study. CLSI EP12-A2 was used to guide test comparisons. Data were pooled using random-effects model. The main outcome measure was diagnostic accuracy of various PD-L1 assays. The 22 included studies provided 376 2×2 contingency tables for analyses. Results of our study suggest that, when the testing laboratory is not able to use an Food and Drug Administration-approved companion diagnostic(s) for PD-L1 assessment for its specific clinical purpose(s), it is better to develop a properly validated laboratory developed test for the same purpose(s) as the original PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved immunohistochemistry companion diagnostic, than to replace the original PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved immunohistochemistry companion diagnostic with a another PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved companion diagnostic that was developed for a different purpose.

Dataset Information

COVID-19: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of commercial assays registered in Brazil.

Publications

COVID-19: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of commercial assays registered in Brazil.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets