Alexey Fomenko, Theo Dähne, Stephanie Weibel, Marcus Panning, Kathrin Grummich, Sabrina Schlesinger, Gerta Rücker, Hartmut Hengel
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
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.
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.
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.