Evaluation on the diagnostic efficiency of different methods in detecting COVID-19
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 <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.youdao.com/w/efficient/">efficient</ext-link> methods complement to the gold standard.
Related articles
Related articles are currently not available for this article.