Test accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests and reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction against virus isolation in cell culture for assessing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 9 2区 医学 Q1 VIROLOGY
Alexey Fomenko, Theo Dähne, Stephanie Weibel, Marcus Panning, Kathrin Grummich, Sabrina Schlesinger, Gerta Rücker, Hartmut Hengel
{"title":"Test accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests and reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction against virus isolation in cell culture for assessing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity: Systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Alexey Fomenko, Theo Dähne, Stephanie Weibel, Marcus Panning, Kathrin Grummich, Sabrina Schlesinger, Gerta Rücker, Hartmut Hengel","doi":"10.1002/rmv.2569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We aimed to assess the performance of Ag-RDT and RT-qPCR with regard to detecting infectious SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures, as their diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) compared to virus isolation remains largely unknown. We searched three databases up to 15 December 2021 for DTA studies. The bivariate model was used to synthesise the estimates. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2/C. Twenty studies (2605 respiratory samples) using cell culture and at least one molecular test were identified. All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Three comparative DTA studies reported results on Ag-RDT and RT-qPCR against cell culture. Two studies evaluated RT-qPCR against cell culture only. Fifteen studies evaluated Ag-RDT against cell culture as reference standard in RT-qPCR-positive samples. For Ag-RDT, summary sensitivity was 93% (95% CI 78; 98%) and specificity 87% (95% CI 70; 95%). For RT-qPCR, summary sensitivity (continuity-corrected) was 98% (95% CI 95; 99%) and specificity 45% (95% CI 28; 63%). In studies relying on RT-qPCR-positive subsamples (n = 15), the summary sensitivity of Ag-RDT was 93% (95% CI 92; 93%) and specificity 63% (95% CI 63; 63%). Ag-RDT show moderately high sensitivity, detecting most but not all samples demonstrated to be infectious based on virus isolation. Although RT-qPCR exhibits high sensitivity across studies, its low specificity to indicate infectivity raises the question of its general superiority in all clinical settings. Study findings should be interpreted with caution due to the risk of bias, heterogeneity and the imperfect reference standard for infectivity.</p>","PeriodicalId":21180,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in Medical Virology","volume":"34 4","pages":"e2569"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reviews in Medical Virology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rmv.2569","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"VIROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We aimed to assess the performance of Ag-RDT and RT-qPCR with regard to detecting infectious SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures, as their diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) compared to virus isolation remains largely unknown. We searched three databases up to 15 December 2021 for DTA studies. The bivariate model was used to synthesise the estimates. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2/C. Twenty studies (2605 respiratory samples) using cell culture and at least one molecular test were identified. All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Three comparative DTA studies reported results on Ag-RDT and RT-qPCR against cell culture. Two studies evaluated RT-qPCR against cell culture only. Fifteen studies evaluated Ag-RDT against cell culture as reference standard in RT-qPCR-positive samples. For Ag-RDT, summary sensitivity was 93% (95% CI 78; 98%) and specificity 87% (95% CI 70; 95%). For RT-qPCR, summary sensitivity (continuity-corrected) was 98% (95% CI 95; 99%) and specificity 45% (95% CI 28; 63%). In studies relying on RT-qPCR-positive subsamples (n = 15), the summary sensitivity of Ag-RDT was 93% (95% CI 92; 93%) and specificity 63% (95% CI 63; 63%). Ag-RDT show moderately high sensitivity, detecting most but not all samples demonstrated to be infectious based on virus isolation. Although RT-qPCR exhibits high sensitivity across studies, its low specificity to indicate infectivity raises the question of its general superiority in all clinical settings. Study findings should be interpreted with caution due to the risk of bias, heterogeneity and the imperfect reference standard for infectivity.

快速诊断测试和反转录聚合酶链反应与细胞培养病毒分离在评估 SARS-CoV-2 感染性方面的测试准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
我们旨在评估 Ag-RDT 和 RT-qPCR 在细胞培养物中检测传染性 SARS-CoV-2 的性能,因为与病毒分离相比,它们的诊断检测准确性(DTA)在很大程度上仍是未知数。我们检索了三个数据库中截至 2021 年 12 月 15 日的 DTA 研究。我们使用双变量模型来综合估计值。使用 QUADAS-2/C 评估偏倚风险。确定了 20 项使用细胞培养和至少一种分子检测方法的研究(2605 份呼吸道样本)。所有研究至少在一个领域存在高度或不明确的偏倚风险。三项 DTA 对比研究报告了 Ag-RDT 和 RT-qPCR 与细胞培养的对比结果。两项研究仅针对细胞培养对 RT-qPCR 进行了评估。15 项研究针对细胞培养作为 RT-qPCR 阳性样本参考标准的 Ag-RDT 进行了评估。Ag-RDT 的灵敏度为 93%(95% CI 78%;98%),特异性为 87%(95% CI 70%;95%)。对于 RT-qPCR,汇总灵敏度(连续性校正)为 98% (95% CI 95; 99%),特异性为 45% (95% CI 28; 63%)。在依赖 RT-qPCR 阳性子样本(n = 15)进行的研究中,Ag-RDT 的灵敏度总和为 93% (95% CI 92; 93%),特异性为 63% (95% CI 63; 63%)。Ag-RDT 显示出中等程度的高灵敏度,可检测出大多数但并非所有根据病毒分离证明具有传染性的样本。尽管 RT-qPCR 在各项研究中都表现出较高的灵敏度,但其在显示感染性方面的特异性较低,这就使人们对其在所有临床环境中的普遍优越性产生了疑问。由于存在偏倚、异质性和感染性参考标准不完善的风险,因此应谨慎解释研究结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Reviews in Medical Virology
Reviews in Medical Virology 医学-病毒学
CiteScore
21.40
自引率
0.90%
发文量
88
期刊介绍: Reviews in Medical Virology aims to provide articles reviewing conceptual or technological advances in diverse areas of virology. The journal covers topics such as molecular biology, cell biology, replication, pathogenesis, immunology, immunization, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment of viruses of medical importance, and COVID-19 research. The journal has an Impact Factor of 6.989 for the year 2020. The readership of the journal includes clinicians, virologists, medical microbiologists, molecular biologists, infectious disease specialists, and immunologists. Reviews in Medical Virology is indexed and abstracted in databases such as CABI, Abstracts in Anthropology, ProQuest, Embase, MEDLINE/PubMed, ProQuest Central K-494, SCOPUS, and Web of Science et,al.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信