Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

How to best test suspected cases of COVID-19: an analysis of the diagnostic performance of RT-PCR and alternative molecular methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2

View ORCID ProfileAdrian Mironas, David Jarrom, Evan Campbell, Jennifer Washington, Sabine Ettinger, Ingrid Wilbacher, Gottfried Endel, Hrvoje Vrazic, Susan Myles, Matthew Prettyjohns
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.15.21249863
Adrian Mironas
1Health Technology Wales, The Life Sciences Hub, 3 Assembly Square, Cardiff, CF10 4PL, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Adrian Mironas
  • For correspondence: Adrian.Mironas@wales.nhs.uk
David Jarrom
1Health Technology Wales, The Life Sciences Hub, 3 Assembly Square, Cardiff, CF10 4PL, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Evan Campbell
2Healthcare Improvement Scotland, Delta House, 50 West Nile Street, Glasgow, G1 2NP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer Washington
1Health Technology Wales, The Life Sciences Hub, 3 Assembly Square, Cardiff, CF10 4PL, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sabine Ettinger
3HTA Austria - Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment GmbH, Garnisongasse 7/20, 1090 Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ingrid Wilbacher
4Federation of Social Insurances, Kundmanngasse 21, 1030 Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gottfried Endel
4Federation of Social Insurances, Kundmanngasse 21, 1030 Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hrvoje Vrazic
4Federation of Social Insurances, Kundmanngasse 21, 1030 Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan Myles
1Health Technology Wales, The Life Sciences Hub, 3 Assembly Square, Cardiff, CF10 4PL, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew Prettyjohns
1Health Technology Wales, The Life Sciences Hub, 3 Assembly Square, Cardiff, CF10 4PL, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

As COVID-19 testing is rolled out increasingly widely, the use of a range of alternative testing methods will be beneficial in ensuring testing systems are resilient and adaptable to different clinical and public health scenarios. Here, we compare and discuss the diagnostic performance of a range of different molecular assays designed to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in people with suspected COVID-19. Using findings from a systematic review of 103 studies, we categorised COVID-19 molecular assays into 12 different test classes, covering point-of-care tests, various alternative RT-PCR protocols, and alternative methods such as isothermal amplification. We carried out meta-analyses to estimate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of each test class. We also estimated the positive and negative predictive values of all diagnostic test classes across a range of prevalence rates. Using previously validated RT-PCR assays as a reference standard, 11 out of 12 classes showed a summary sensitivity estimate of at least 92% and a specificity estimate of at least 99%. Several diagnostic test classes were estimated to have positive predictive values of 100% throughout the investigated prevalence spectrum, whilst estimated negative predictive values were more variable and sensitive to disease prevalence. We also report the results of clinical utility models that can be used to determine the information gained from a positive and negative test result in each class, and whether each test is more suitable for confirmation or exclusion of disease. Our analysis suggests that several tests exist that are suitable alternatives to standard RT-PCR and we discuss scenarios in which these could be most beneficial, such as where time to test result is critical or, where resources are constrained. However, we also highlight methodological concerns with the design and conduct of many included studies, and also the existence of likely publication bias for some test classes. Our results should be interpreted with these shortcomings in mind. Furthermore, our conclusions on test performance are limited to their use in symptomatic populations: we did not identify sufficient suitable data to allow analysis of testing in asymptomatic populations.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

The rapid collaborative review and the resulting manuscript were established within the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA), which received funding from the European Union Health Programme (2014-2020) for the project / joint action 724130 / EUnetHTA JA3. AM, DJ, MP, JW, SM received non-financial support from EUnetHTA due to their Associate Membership, the remainder of authors as EUnetHTA members received co-funding. The content of this publication represents the views of the author(s) only and is his/her sole responsibility; it cannot be considered to reflect the views of the European Commission and/or the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency or any other body of the European Union. The European Commission and the Agency do not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Not applicable

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

The rapid collaborative review, project plan and plain language summary can be found at the link provided below.

https://eunethta.eu/rcrot02/

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted January 15, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
How to best test suspected cases of COVID-19: an analysis of the diagnostic performance of RT-PCR and alternative molecular methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
How to best test suspected cases of COVID-19: an analysis of the diagnostic performance of RT-PCR and alternative molecular methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2
Adrian Mironas, David Jarrom, Evan Campbell, Jennifer Washington, Sabine Ettinger, Ingrid Wilbacher, Gottfried Endel, Hrvoje Vrazic, Susan Myles, Matthew Prettyjohns
medRxiv 2021.01.15.21249863; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.15.21249863
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
How to best test suspected cases of COVID-19: an analysis of the diagnostic performance of RT-PCR and alternative molecular methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2
Adrian Mironas, David Jarrom, Evan Campbell, Jennifer Washington, Sabine Ettinger, Ingrid Wilbacher, Gottfried Endel, Hrvoje Vrazic, Susan Myles, Matthew Prettyjohns
medRxiv 2021.01.15.21249863; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.15.21249863

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Health Policy
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (76)
  • Allergy and Immunology (194)
  • Anesthesia (54)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (488)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (89)
  • Dermatology (56)
  • Emergency Medicine (168)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (211)
  • Epidemiology (5661)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (215)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (856)
  • Geriatric Medicine (88)
  • Health Economics (229)
  • Health Informatics (759)
  • Health Policy (388)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (250)
  • Hematology (105)
  • HIV/AIDS (181)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (6455)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (388)
  • Medical Education (116)
  • Medical Ethics (28)
  • Nephrology (90)
  • Neurology (845)
  • Nursing (44)
  • Nutrition (141)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (161)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (258)
  • Oncology (514)
  • Ophthalmology (162)
  • Orthopedics (44)
  • Otolaryngology (105)
  • Pain Medicine (47)
  • Palliative Medicine (21)
  • Pathology (149)
  • Pediatrics (248)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (146)
  • Primary Care Research (113)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (959)
  • Public and Global Health (2222)
  • Radiology and Imaging (375)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (174)
  • Respiratory Medicine (311)
  • Rheumatology (109)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (80)
  • Sports Medicine (82)
  • Surgery (118)
  • Toxicology (25)
  • Transplantation (34)
  • Urology (42)