Dataset Information

SARS-CoV-2 detection in different respiratory sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 through respiratory sampling is critical for the prevention of further transmission and the timely initiation of treatment for COVID-19. There is a diverse range of SARS-CoV-2 detection rates in reported studies, with uncertainty as to the optimal sampling strategy for COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing respiratory sampling strategies for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The inclusion criteria were studies that assessed at least two respiratory sampling sites (oropharyngeal swab, nasopharyngeal swab, and sputum) in participants with COVID-19. The percentage positive tests were compared between sampling modalities by constructing a Z-test assuming independence and using the standard errors obtained from the random effects meta-analysis.

Findings

From 1039 total studies, we identified 11 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with SARS-CoV-2 testing results from a total of 3442 respiratory tract specimens. Compared to nasopharyngeal swab sampling, sputum testing resulted in significantly higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection while oropharyngeal swab testing had lower rates of viral RNA detection. Earlier sampling after symptom onset was associated with improved detection rates, but the differences in SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by sampling method was consistent regardless of the duration of symptoms.

Interpretation

The results support sputum sampling as a valuable method of COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring, and highlight the importance of early testing after symptom onset to increase the rates of COVID-19 diagnosis.

Funding

This study was funded in part by the NIH grants U01AI106701 and by the Harvard University for AIDS Research (NIAID 5P30AI060354).

SUBMITTER: Mohammadi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7380223 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

SARS-CoV-2 detection in different respiratory sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mohammadi Abbas A Esmaeilzadeh Elmira E Li Yijia Y Bosch Ronald J RJ Li Jonathan Z JZ

EBioMedicine 20200724

<h4>Background</h4>The accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 through respiratory sampling is critical for the prevention of further transmission and the timely initiation of treatment for COVID-19. There is a diverse range of SARS-CoV-2 detection rates in reported studies, with uncertainty as to the optimal sampling strategy for COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing respiratory sampling strategies for the detection of ...[more]

PMID: 32718896

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic raises an urgent need for large-scale control through easier, cheaper, and safer diagnostic specimens, including saliva and sputum. We aimed to conduct a systemic review and meta-analysis on the reliability and sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection in saliva and deep throat sputum (DTS) compared to nasopharyngeal, combined naso/oropharyngeal, and oropharyngeal swabs.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA statement. The inclusion criteria were studies that specifically assessed a sample of saliva or DTS with at least one other respiratory specimen in patients with COVID-19 infection, based on RT-PCR tests. The DerSimonian-Laird bivariate random-effects model analysis performed using STATA software with the "metaprop" package.ResultsFrom 1598 studies, we retrieved 33 records, of which 26 studies were included for quantitative analysis. We found an overall sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86-100) for bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, 92% (95% CI, 80-99) for double naso/oropharyngeal swabs, 87% (95% CI, 77-95) for nasopharyngeal swabs, 83% (95% CI, 77-89) for saliva, 82% (95% CI, 76-88) for DTS, and 44% (95% CI, 35-52) for oropharyngeal swabs among symptomatic patients, respectively. Regardless of the type of specimens, the viral load and sensitivity in the severe patients were higher than mild and in the symptomatic patients higher than asymptomatic cases.ConclusionsThe present review provides evidence for the diagnostic value of different respiratory specimens and supports saliva and DTS as promising diagnostic tools for first-line screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the methods of sampling, storing, and laboratory assay need to be optimized and validated before introducing as a definitive diagnosis tool. Saliva, DTS, and nasopharyngeal swab showed approximately similar results, and sensitivity was directly related to the disease severity. This review revealed a relationship between viral load, disease severity, and test sensitivity. None of the specimens showed appropriate diagnostic sensitivity for asymptomatic patients.

Project description:ObjectivesCOVID-19 has been arguably the most important public health concern worldwide in 2020, and efforts are now escalating to suppress or eliminate its spread. In this study we undertook a meta-analysis to estimate the global and regional seroprevalence rates in humans of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and to assess whether seroprevalence is associated with geographical, climatic and/or sociodemographic factors.MethodsWe systematically reviewed PubMed, Scopus, Embase, medRxiv and bioRxiv databases for preprints or peer-reviewed articles (up to 14 August 2020). Study eligibility criteria were population-based studies describing the prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 (IgG and/or IgM) serum antibodies. Participants were people from different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds (from the general population), whose prior COVID-19 status was unknown and who were tested for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serum antibodies. We used a random-effects model to estimate pooled seroprevalence, and then extrapolated the findings to the global population (for 2020). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses explored potential sources of heterogeneity in the data, and relationships between seroprevalence and sociodemographic, geographical and/or climatic factors.ResultsIn total, 47 studies involving 399 265 people from 23 countries met the inclusion criteria. Heterogeneity (I2 = 99.4%, p < 0.001) was seen among studies; SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in the general population varied from 0.37% to 22.1%, with a pooled estimate of 3.38% (95%CI 3.05-3.72%; 15 879/399 265). On a regional level, seroprevalence varied from 1.45% (0.95-1.94%, South America) to 5.27% (3.97-6.57%, Northern Europe), although some variation appeared to relate to the serological assay used. The findings suggested an association of seroprevalence with income levels, human development indices, geographic latitudes and/or climate. Extrapolating to the 2020 world population, we estimated that 263.5 million individuals had been exposed or infected at the time of this study.ConclusionsThis study showed that SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence varied markedly among geographic regions, as might be expected early in a pandemic. Longitudinal surveys to continually monitor seroprevalence around the globe will be critical to support prevention and control efforts, and might indicate levels of endemic stability or instability in particular countries and regions.

Project description:Although many studies of long COVID-19 were reported, there was a lack of systematic research which assessed the differences of long COVID-19 in regard to what unique SARS-CoV-2 strains caused it. As such, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the characteristics of long COVID-19 that is caused by different SARS-CoV-2 strains. We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect databases in order to find cohort studies of long COVID-19 as defined by the WHO (Geneva, Switzerland). The main outcomes were in determining the percentages of long COVID-19 among patients who were infected with different SARS-CoV-2 strains. Further, this study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022339964). A total of 51 studies with 33,573 patients was included, of which three studies possessed the Alpha and Delta variants, and five studies possessed the Omicron variant. The highest pooled estimate of long COVID-19 was found in the CT abnormalities (60.5%; 95% CI: 40.4%, 80.6%) for the wild-type strain; fatigue (66.1%; 95% CI: 42.2%, 89.9%) for the Alpha variant; and ≥1 general symptoms (28.4%; 95% CI: 7.9%, 49.0%) for the Omicron variant. The pooled estimates of ≥1 general symptoms (65.8%; 95% CI: 47.7%, 83.9%) and fatigue were the highest symptoms found among patients infected with the Alpha variant, followed by the wild-type strain, and then the Omicron variant. The pooled estimate of myalgia was highest among patients infected with the Omicron variant (11.7%; 95%: 8.3%, 15.1%), compared with those infected with the wild-type strain (9.4%; 95%: 6.3%, 12.5%). The pooled estimate of sleep difficulty was lowest among the patients infected with the Delta variant (2.5%; 95%: 0.2%, 4.9%) when compared with those infected with the wild-type strain (24.5%; 95%: 17.5%, 31.5%) and the Omicron variant (18.7%; 95%: 1.0%, 36.5%). The findings of this study suggest that there is no significant difference between long COVID-19 that has been caused by different strains, except in certain general symptoms (i.e., in the Alpha or Omicron variant) and in sleep difficulty (i.e., the wild-type strain). In the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its emerging variants, directing more attention to long COVID-19 that is caused by unique strains, as well as implementing targeted intervention measures to address it are vital.

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsIn 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.FindingsOf 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 (I2 ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs.InterpretationOur 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 acceptable alternative specimen collection methods. Throat swabs gave a much lower sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be recommended. Self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs was not associated with any significant impairment of diagnostic accuracy. Our results also provide a useful reference framework for the proper interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing results using different clinical specimens.FundingHong Kong Research Grants Council.

Dataset Information

SARS-CoV-2 detection in different respiratory sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

SARS-CoV-2 detection in different respiratory sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets