Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Systematic review with meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy for COVID-19 by mass spectrometry.
Spick, Matt; Lewis, Holly M; Wilde, Michael J; Hopley, Christopher; Huggett, Jim; Bailey, Melanie J.
Afiliação
  • Spick M; Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK.
  • Lewis HM; Surrey Ion Beam Centre, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK.
  • Wilde MJ; School of Chemistry, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.
  • Hopley C; National Measurement Laboratory, LGC, Queens Road, Teddington TW11 0LY, UK.
  • Huggett J; National Measurement Laboratory, LGC, Queens Road, Teddington TW11 0LY, UK; School of Biosciences and Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK.
  • Bailey MJ; Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK; Surrey Ion Beam Centre, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK. Electronic address: m.bailey@surrey.ac.uk.
Metabolism ; 126: 154922, 2022 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34715115
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The global COVID-19 pandemic has led to extensive development in many fields, including the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection by mass spectrometry. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the accuracy of mass spectrometry diagnostic tests developed so far, across a wide range of biological matrices, and additionally to assess risks of bias and applicability in studies published to date.

METHOD:

23 retrospective observational cohort studies were included in the systematic review using the PRISMA-DTA framework, with a total of 2858 COVID-19 positive participants and 2544 controls. Risks of bias and applicability were assessed via a QUADAS-2 questionnaire. A meta-analysis was also performed focusing on sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy and Youden's Index, in addition to assessing heterogeneity.

FINDINGS:

Sensitivity averaged 0.87 in the studies reviewed herein (interquartile range 0.81-0.96) and specificity 0.88 (interquartile range 0.82-0.98), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic summary curve of 0.93. By subgroup, the best diagnostic results were achieved by viral proteomic analyses of nasopharyngeal swabs and metabolomic analyses of plasma and serum. The performance of other sampling matrices (breath, sebum, saliva) was less good, indicating that these protocols are currently insufficiently mature for clinical application.

CONCLUSIONS:

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates the potential for mass spectrometry and 'omics in achieving accurate test results for COVID-19 diagnosis, but also highlights the need for further work to optimize and harmonize practice across laboratories before these methods can be translated to clinical applications.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Espectrometria de Massas / Teste para COVID-19 / COVID-19 Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Espectrometria de Massas / Teste para COVID-19 / COVID-19 Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article