Abstract
Background Testing is one of the commendable preventive measures against coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and needs to be done using both most appropriate specimen and an accurate diagnostic test like real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). However, the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA from different clinical specimens after onset of symptoms is not yet well established. For guiding the selection of specimens for clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, a systematic review aiming at profiling the positive detection rate from different clinical specimens using PCR was conducted.
Methods The systematic search was done using PubMed/MEDLINE, Science direct, Google Scholar, among others. The search included studies on laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 from different clinical specimens using PCR. Data extraction was done using Microsoft Excel spread sheet 2010 and reported according to PRISMA-P guidelines. Using Open Meta Analyst software, DerSimonian–Laird random effects analysis was performed to determine a summary estimate (positive rate [PR]/proportions) and their 95% confidence interval (95%CI).
Results A total of 8136 different clinical specimens were analyzed to detect SARS-CoV-2, with majority being nasopharyngeal swabs (69.6%). Lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens had a PR of 71.3% (95%CI:60.3%-82.3%) while no virus was detected from the urinogenital specimens. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BLF) specimen had the PR of 91.8% (95%CI:79.9-103.7%), followed by rectal swabs, 87.8 % (95%CI:78.6%-96.9%) then sputum, 68.1% (95%CI:56.9%-79.4%). Low PR was observed in oropharyngeal swabs, 7.6% (95%CI:5.7%-9.6%) and blood samples, 1.0% (95%CI: -0.1%-2.1%), whilst no SARS-CoV-2 was detected in urine samples. Nasopharyngeal swab, a widely used specimen had a PR of 45.5% (95%CI:31.2%-59.7%).
Conclusion In this study, SARS-CoV-2 was highly detected in lower respiratory tract specimens while there was no detected virus in urinogenital specimens. Regarding the type of clinical specimens, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid had the highest positive rate followed by rectal swab then sputum. Nasopharyngeal swab which is widely used had a moderate detection rate. Low positive rate was recorded in oropharyngeal swab and blood sample while no virus was found in urine samples. More importantly, the virus was detected in feces, suggesting SARS-CoV-2 transmission by the fecal route.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors received no specific funding for this work.
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:
The type of study (Systematic review) does not require ethical clearance.
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 relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files (Additional file 1, 2 &3).
