Este articulo es un Preprint
Los preprints son informes de investigación preliminares que no han sido certificados por revisión por pares. No deben considerarse para guiar la práctica clínica o los comportamientos relacionados con la salud y no deben publicarse en los medios como información establecida.
Los preprints publicados en línea permiten a los autores recibir comentarios rápidamente, y toda la comunidad científica puede evaluar de forma independiente el trabajo y responder adecuadamente. Estos comentarios se publican junto con los preprints para que cualquiera pueda leer y servir como una revisión pospublicación.
Evaluation on the diagnostic efficiency of different methods in detecting COVID-19.
Preprint
en En
| PREPRINT-MEDRXIV
| ID: ppmedrxiv-20139931
ABSTRACT
ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of different methods in detecting COVID-19 to provide preliminary evidence on choosing favourable method for COVID-19 detection. MethodsPubMed, 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. Results18 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(R) 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. ConclusionsThese methods (ePlex, Panther Fusion, Simplexa, Cobas(R), RT-LAMP and Xpert Xpress) bear higher sensitivity and specificity, and might be efficient methods complement to the gold standard.
cc_by_nc_nd
Texto completo:
1
Colección:
09-preprints
Base de datos:
PREPRINT-MEDRXIV
Tipo de estudio:
Diagnostic_studies
/
Experimental_studies
/
Prognostic_studies
/
Review
Idioma:
En
Año:
2020
Tipo del documento:
Preprint