Abstract
Nasopharyngeal sampling (NP) is the routine standard for SASR-CoV-2 detection using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). In this systematic review, we assessed diagnostic test accuracy of alternative sampling sites compared to NP for RT-PCR testing of Omicron (sub)-variants.
We systematically searched for studies from January 2022 until February 2023 investigating any type of respiratory sample for RT-PCR in people with suspected, known, or known absence of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection. Data were pooled for each comparison using the bivariate model, sensitivity and specificity was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2 tool, certainty of evidence with GRADE.
We included three cohort-type cross-sectional studies (1,003 participants). Saliva versus NP sampling in three studies showed a sensitivity of 92% (95% CI 87% to 96%) and a specificity of 94% (95% CI 83% to 98%). AN versus NP sampling in one study showed a sensitivity of 90% (95% CI 82% to 95%) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI 95% to 100%). Certainty of evidence for sensitivity and specificity of both comparisons was low to very low.
Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about accuracy of different sampling sites for RT-PCR.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
We thank the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany NUM 2.0 (funding number: 01KX2121); part of the project PREPARED for supporting this work. The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
ABBREVATIONS
- PHEIC
- public health emergency of international concern
- DTA
- diagnostic test accuracy
- HCWs
- health care workers
- NP
- nasopharyngeal
- PPV
- positive predictive value
- NPV
- negative predictive value
- TP
- true positives
- TN
- true negatives
- FP
- false positives
- FN
- false negatives
- Ct
- cycle threshold
- Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation
- GRADE
