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

Meta-Analysis of Robustness of COVID-19 Diagnostic Kits During Early Pandemic

View ORCID ProfileChandrakumar Shanmugam, View ORCID ProfileMichael Behring, View ORCID ProfileVishwas Luthra, View ORCID ProfileSixto M Leal Jr., Sameer Al Diffalha, View ORCID ProfileSooryanarayana Varambally, View ORCID ProfileGeorge J Netto, View ORCID ProfileUpender Manne
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.16.21249937
Chandrakumar Shanmugam
1Department of Pathology, RVM Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Center (KNR University of Health Sciences), Laxmakkapally, Mulugu, Siddipet, Telangana, India 502279
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Chandrakumar Shanmugam
Michael Behring
2Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA 35274
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Michael Behring
Vishwas Luthra
3Department of General Medicine, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Mehta Road, Vallah, Amritsar, Punjab, India 143501
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Vishwas Luthra
Sixto M Leal Jr.
2Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA 35274
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Sixto M Leal Jr.
Sameer Al Diffalha
2Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA 35274
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sooryanarayana Varambally
2Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA 35274
4O’Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA 35274
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Sooryanarayana Varambally
George J Netto
2Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA 35274
4O’Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA 35274
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for George J Netto
Upender Manne
2Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA 35274
4O’Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA 35274
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Upender Manne
  • For correspondence: upendermanne@uabmc.edu
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Background Accurate detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is necessary to mitigate the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, the test reagents and assay platforms are varied and may not be sufficiently robust to diagnose COVID-19.

Methods We reviewed 85 studies (21,530 patients), published from five regions of the world, to highlight issues involved in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in the early phase of the pandemic, following the standards outlined in the PRISMA statement. All relevant articles, published up to May 31, 2020, in PubMed, BioRiXv, MedRiXv, and Google Scholar, were included. We evaluated the qualitative (9749 patients) and quantitative (10,355 patients) performance of RT-PCR and serologic diagnostic tests for real-world samples, and assessed the concordance (5,538 patients) between methods in meta-analyses.

Results The RT-PCR tests exhibited heterogeneity in the primers and reagents used. Of 1,957 positive RT-PCR COVID-19 participants, 1,585 had positive serum antibody (IgM +/- IgG) tests (sensitivity 0.81, 95%CI 0.66-.90). While 3,509 of 3581 participants RT-PCR negative for COVID-19 were found negative by serology testing (specificity 0.98, 95%CI 0.94-0.99). The chemiluminescent immunoassay exhibited the highest sensitivity, followed by ELISA and lateral flow immunoassays. Serology tests had higher sensitivity and specificity for laboratory-approval than for real-world reporting data.

Conclusions The robustness of the assays/platforms is influenced by variability in sampling and reagents. Serological testing complements and may minimize false negative RT-PCR results. Lack of standardized assay protocols in the early phase of pandemic might have contributed to the spread of COVID-19.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study was supported, in part, by grant 5U54CA118948 and institutional/departmental impact funds (UM), and by CA047888, the UAB Cancer Prevention and Control Training Program (MB).

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:

Exempt meta-analysis and systematic review

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

All data is publicly available as detailed in supplementary table 1

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted January 20, 2021.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

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.
Meta-Analysis of Robustness of COVID-19 Diagnostic Kits During Early Pandemic
(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
Meta-Analysis of Robustness of COVID-19 Diagnostic Kits During Early Pandemic
Chandrakumar Shanmugam, Michael Behring, Vishwas Luthra, Sixto M Leal Jr., Sameer Al Diffalha, Sooryanarayana Varambally, George J Netto, Upender Manne
medRxiv 2021.01.16.21249937; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.16.21249937
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Meta-Analysis of Robustness of COVID-19 Diagnostic Kits During Early Pandemic
Chandrakumar Shanmugam, Michael Behring, Vishwas Luthra, Sixto M Leal Jr., Sameer Al Diffalha, Sooryanarayana Varambally, George J Netto, Upender Manne
medRxiv 2021.01.16.21249937; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.16.21249937

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

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (76)
  • Allergy and Immunology (195)
  • Anesthesia (54)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (489)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (89)
  • Dermatology (56)
  • Emergency Medicine (168)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (211)
  • Epidemiology (5674)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (215)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (863)
  • Geriatric Medicine (88)
  • Health Economics (230)
  • Health Informatics (761)
  • Health Policy (390)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (250)
  • Hematology (105)
  • HIV/AIDS (182)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (6467)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (390)
  • Medical Education (117)
  • Medical Ethics (28)
  • Nephrology (90)
  • Neurology (846)
  • Nursing (44)
  • Nutrition (141)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (162)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (258)
  • Oncology (514)
  • Ophthalmology (163)
  • Orthopedics (44)
  • Otolaryngology (105)
  • Pain Medicine (48)
  • Palliative Medicine (21)
  • Pathology (149)
  • Pediatrics (250)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (146)
  • Primary Care Research (113)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (963)
  • Public and Global Health (2224)
  • Radiology and Imaging (376)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (174)
  • Respiratory Medicine (312)
  • Rheumatology (109)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (80)
  • Sports Medicine (82)
  • Surgery (118)
  • Toxicology (25)
  • Transplantation (34)
  • Urology (42)