Evaluation on the diagnostic efficiency of different methods in detecting COVID-19

  1. Haitao Yang
  2. Yuzhu Lan
  3. Xiujuan Yao
  4. Sheng Lin
  5. Baosong Xie

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of different methods in detecting COVID-19 to provide preliminary evidence on choosing favourable method for COVID-19 detection.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases were searched for identifing eligible articles. All data were calculated utilizing Meta Disc 1.4, Revman 5.3.2 and Stata 12. The diagnostic efficiency was assessed via these indicators including summary sensitivity and specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative LR (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), summary receiver operating characteristic curve (sROC) and calculate the AUC.

Results

18 articles (3648 cases) were included. The results showed no significant threshold exist. EPlex: pooled sensitivity was 0.94; specificity was 1.0; PLR was 90.91; NLR was 0.07; DOR was 1409.49; AUC=0.9979, Q*=0.9840. Panther Fusion: pooled sensitivity was 0.99; specificity was 0.98; PLR was 42.46; NLR was 0.02; DOR was 2300.38; AUC=0.9970, Q*=0.9799. Simplexa: pooled sensitivity was 1.0; specificity was 0.97; PLR was 26.67; NLR was 0.01; DOR was 3100.93; AUC=0.9970, Q*=0.9800. Cobas ®: pooled sensitivity was 0.99; specificity was 0.96; PLR was 37.82; NLR was 0.02; DOR was 3754.05; AUC=0.9973, Q*=0.9810. RT-LAMP: pooled sensitivity was 0.98; specificity was 0.99; PLR was 36.22; NLR was 0.04; DOR was 751.24; AUC=0.9905, Q*=0.9596. Xpert Xpress: pooled sensitivity was 0.99; specificity was 0.97; PLR was 27.44; NLR was 0.01; DOR was 3488.15; AUC=0.9977, Q*=0.9829.

Conclusions

These methods (ePlex, Panther Fusion, Simplexa, Cobas ® , RT-LAMP and Xpert Xpress) bear higher sensitivity and specificity, and might be efficient methods complement to the gold standard.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.25.20139931: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Search strategy: Studies on evaluation of the method for COVID-19 detection in PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases were thoroughly searched, from their inception till 25 March 2020.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    Statistical method: All statistical analyses were conducted by employing Meta-Disc 1.4, RevMan 5.3.2
    RevMan
    suggested: (RevMan, RRID:SCR_003581)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    However, rRT-PCR has some limitations, which can not meet the huge demand for the global pandemic of COVID-19. Recently, the US FDA has been authorized multiple rapid molecular tests to meet the huge diagnostic need. Different diagnostic methods have proposed different virus targets for detection of the virus, which would detect SARS-CoV-2 and other related beta coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV, including RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), envelope (E), spike (S), Open Reading Frame (ORF) 1a and nucleocapsid (N)(21, 47, 51, 52). This article discusses some of the diagnostic methods include EUA-granted assays. To date, this study was the first meta-analysis on systematically evaluating the diagnostic efficiency of different method for detecting COVID-19. In this study, we analyzed the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, AUC and Q* on each methods (ePlex, Panther Fusion, Simplexa, Cobas®, Xpert Xpress and RT-LAMP), respectively. The results demonstrated that these above methods bear higher sensitivity and specificity, and might be efficient methods complement to the gold standard. The ePlex assay targets the N gene of SARS-CoV-2, which is an in vitro diagnostic test. The ePlex has a relatively short turnaround time, simple operational flow, but a shortage of supply and inventory limits its full implementation. The Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay targets two conserved regions of ORF1ab in the same fluorescence channel. This platform is automated, high-throughput syst...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.25.20139931v1 on medRxiv