Evaluation on the diagnostic efficiency of different methods in detecting COVID-19

Haitao Yang, Yuzhu Lan, Xiujuan Yao, Sheng Lin, Baosong Xie
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.25.20139931

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of different methods in detecting COVID-19 to provide preliminary evidence on choosing favourable method for COVID-19 detection.

Methods PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases were searched for identifing eligible articles. All data were calculated utilizing Meta Disc 1.4, Revman 5.3.2 and Stata 12. The diagnostic efficiency was assessed via these indicators including summary sensitivity and specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative LR (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), summary receiver operating characteristic curve (sROC) and calculate the AUC.

Results 18 articles (3648 cases) were included. The results showed no significant threshold exist. EPlex: pooled sensitivity was 0.94; specificity was 1.0; PLR was 90.91; NLR was 0.07; DOR was 1409.49; AUC=0.9979, Q*=0.9840. Panther Fusion: pooled sensitivity was 0.99; specificity was 0.98; PLR was 42.46; NLR was 0.02; DOR was 2300.38; AUC=0.9970, Q*=0.9799. Simplexa: pooled sensitivity was 1.0; specificity was 0.97; PLR was 26.67; NLR was 0.01; DOR was 3100.93; AUC=0.9970, Q*=0.9800. Cobas®: pooled sensitivity was 0.99; specificity was 0.96; PLR was 37.82; NLR was 0.02; DOR was 3754.05; AUC=0.9973, Q*=0.9810. RT-LAMP: pooled sensitivity was 0.98; specificity was 0.99; PLR was 36.22; NLR was 0.04; DOR was 751.24; AUC=0.9905, Q*=0.9596. Xpert Xpress: pooled sensitivity was 0.99; specificity was 0.97; PLR was 27.44; NLR was 0.01; DOR was 3488.15; AUC=0.9977, Q*=0.9829.

Conclusions These methods (ePlex, Panther Fusion, Simplexa, Cobas®, RT-LAMP and Xpert Xpress) bear higher sensitivity and specificity, and might be efficient methods complement to the gold standard.

Introduction

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) belonging to the genus beta coronavirus, is the seventh and most novel human coronavirus. It is highly homologous to the sequences of coronaviruses found in humans, bats and other wild animals (like SARS-CoV and bat SARS-like CoV), with a sequence homology of 80% to 89%(1-8)

Corona Virus Disease 2019(COVID-19) often presents with fever, myalgia, cough, dyspnea and atypical imaging findings (9-11). However, there are also cases with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic(12-15). By 9 June 2020, 7 039 918 confirmed cases have been reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) from 216 countries, with 404 396 deaths(16). COVID-19 has caused a worldwide epidemic and most countries have implemented a containment strategy as advised by the WHO to control further transmission(17, 18). It is urgent to develop rapid, accurate diagnosis methods to effectively identify these early infected patients, treat them in time and control the disease spreading(19).

Through metagenomic sequencing, SARS-CoV-2 was first identified in BALF (bronchoalveolar lavage fluid) of Chinese patients(10, 20, 21). Based on the rapid characterization of the full genome of the virus, many molecular diagnostic methods have been developed rapidly. Real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) is currently the standard of the diagnosis of acute coronavirus disease (COVID-19)(10, 21, 22). However, rRT-PCR assay has many limitations, such as required high purity samples, trained personnel and time-consuming. This test did not meet the rapidly growing need for virus testing in patients with COVID-19 infection, suspected infection or close contact with confirmed cases, which have significantly hampered public health efforts to contain the outbreak. To resolve this contradiction, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for multiple SARS-CoV-2 rapid tests beginning in March 2020. Up to now, some studies have been published to comparing the diagnostic features of these methods(23-25), whereas the results were inconsistent. Therefore, it is urgent to performed this meta-analysis to comprehensively summarize the characteristics of the diagnostic assay in detecting COVID-19 to provide the preliminary evidence to support further guide clinical routine through evidence-based medicine.

Materials and Methods

Search strategy

Studies on evaluation of the method for COVID-19 detection in PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases were thoroughly searched, from their inception till 25 March 2020. The Searching terms include: “PCR”, “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “Corona Virus Disease 2019”, “RT-PCR”, “diagnosis”. The language was limited in English.

Study selection

Pertinent articles were identified by two reviewers after screening titles or abstracts. Duplicated articles were removed by checking duplication. Besides, references of selected articles were screened to find more relevant articles. Disagreement was resolved by the third reviewer. All eligible articles were evaluated by Quadas-2 for systematic reviews of intervention (Version 5.3.0).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Articles meeting the following criteria were included in this study: i) the articles studied on the method for detecting COVID-19; ii) patients recruited in articles should include COVID-19 and non-COVID-19; iii) patients defined as COVID-19 or non-COVID-19 were proved by gold standard; iv) data in articles were sufficient to analyze the pooled sensitivity and specificity; v) articles published in English. Incomplete data, reviews and case reports were excluded.

Data extraction

Two reviewers independently pooled the following data from eligible articles: author, year, Country, sample size, methods, true positive (TP), false positive (FP), false negative (FN), true negative (TN). When the extracted data were inconsistent, discrepancies were resolved by discussion or the third reviewer.

Statistical method

All statistical analyses were conducted by employing Meta-Disc 1.4, RevMan 5.3.2, Stata 12 software. The threshold effect was evaluated by computation of Spearman correlation coefficient between the logit of sensitivity and logit of 1-specificity. A strong positive correlation suggested the threshold effect. Heterogeneity among included articles was assessed via Chi-square and I-square tests. I2>50% or P<0.1 were deemed as significant heterogeneity existing. The random-effects or fixed-effects model was chosen to analyze the pooled data depending on the presented heterogeneity. The summary sensitivity and specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative LR (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), summary receiver operating characteristic curve (sROC) and calculate the AUC were utilized to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of the aboved methods in detecting COVID-19. The publication bias was evaluated by Deek’s funnel plot asymmetry test. P>0.1 suggested no significant publication bias in this study.

Results

After searching three databases, out of 1094 duplicate articles, 3874 articles were identified. Then, 3837 articles were removed by screening the title or abstract. Afterwards, 19 articles were further excluded via thoroughly reading the full-text. Eventually, 18 articles of 3648 cases were included in this meta-analysis. Table 1 described the characteristics of included articles. Supplementary Figure 1 exhibited the progression of searching. Considering various of methods among included articles, we conducted this meta-analysis based on the different methods (3 articles for ePlex(26-28); 4 articles for Panther Fusion(26, 27, 29, 30); 3 articles for Simplexa(26, 29, 31); 3 articles for Cobas®(29, 32-34) ; 5 articles for Xpert Xpress(27, 29, 35-37), 6 articles for RT-LAMP(38-43)).

Supplementary Figure 1.
Supplementary Figure 1.

The flow chart for study selection.

View this table:
Table 1.

the characteristics of included studies.

Quality evaluation

All eligible articles were assessed through the Quadas-2 tool. The result suggested that all articles exhibited good quality (Supplementary Figure 2).

Supplementary Figure 2.
Supplementary Figure 2.

Quality assessment of included studies by Quadas-2: summary table of rating of risk of bias and applicability concerns for each study (A); cumulative barplot of risk of bias and applicability concerns across all studies (B).

Threshold effect

The Spearman correlation coefficient and p-value were utilized to evaluate the threshold effect via Meta-DiSc software 1.4. The Spearman correlation and p-value of ePlex were 0.500, P= 0.667; Panther Fusion were −0.200, P= 0.800; Simplexa were −0.500, P= 0.667; Cobas® were 0.316, P= 0.684; Xpert Xpress were 0.300, P= 0.624; RT-LAMP were −0.348, P= 0.499. According to these results, no significant threshold exist in these studies on evaluating the different methods in detecting COVID-19.

Diagnostic efficiency of different methods

ePlex

Three articles reported this method were included. The results showed the pooled sensitivity was 0.94, 95%CI (0.89-0.98) (I2=24.9%, P=0.2641) (Figure 1A); pooled specificity was 1.0, 95%CI (0.97-1.0) (I2=0%, P=1.0)(Figure 1B); pooled PLR was 90.91, 95%CI (17.25-479.2) (I2=0%, P=0.9740) (Figure 1C); pooled NLR was 0.07, 95%CI (0.03-0.13) (I2=0%, P=0.5502) (Figure 1D); pooled DOR was 1409.49, 95%CI (202.69-9801.44) (I2=0%, P=0.9297) (Figure 1E); AUC=0.9979, Q*=0.9840 (Figure 1F).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

The diagnostic efficiency of ePlex: pooled summary sensitivity (A), specificity (B), PLR (C), NLR (D), DOR (E), sROC (F).

Panther Fusion

Four articles described this method were included. The results revealed that the pooled sensitivity was 0.99, 95%CI (0.96-1.0) (I2=54.5%, P=0.0858) (Figure 2A); pooled specificity was 0.98, 95%CI (0.96-1.0) (I2=20.2%, P=0.2888) (Figure 2B); pooled PLR was 42.46, 95%CI (18.50-97.43) (I2=0%, P=0.6347) (Figure 2C); pooled NLR was 0.02, 95%CI (0.01-0.11) (I2=54.9%, P=0.0839) (Figure 2D); pooled DOR was 2300.38, 95%CI (493.51-10722.63) (I2=0%, P=0.6673) (Figure 2E); AUC=0.9970, Q*=0.9799 (Figure 2F).

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

The diagnostic efficiency of Panther Fusion: pooled summary sensitivity (A), specificity (B), PLR (C), NLR (D), DOR (E), sROC (F).

Simplexa

Three articles exhibited this method were included. The results demonstrated that the pooled sensitivity was 1.0, 95%CI (0.98-1.0) (I2=0%, P=1.0) (Figure 3A); pooled specificity was 0.97, 95%CI (0.94-0.99) (I2=58.2%, P=0.0914) (Figure 3B); pooled PLR was 26.67, 95%CI (13.94-51.03) (I2=0%, P=0.4563) (Figure 3C); pooled NLR was 0.01, 95%CI (0.00-0.05) (I2=0%, P=0.4677) (Figure 3D); pooled DOR was 3100.93, 95%CI (406.14-23829.04) (I2=0%, P=0.4844) (Figure 3E); AUC=0.9970, Q*=0.9800 (Figure 3F).

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

The diagnostic efficiency of Simplexa: pooled summary sensitivity (A), specificity (B), PLR (C), NLR (D), DOR (E), sROC (F).

Cobas®

Four articles described this method were included. The results demonstrated that the pooled sensitivity was 0.99, 95%CI (0.99-1.0) (I2=68%, P=0.0247) (Figure 4A); pooled specificity was 0.96, 95%CI (0.94-0.97) (I2=95.6%, P=0.000) (Figure 4B); pooled PLR was 37.82, 95%CI (4.6-311.22) (I2=90.3%, P=0.000) (Figure 4C); pooled NLR was 0.02, 95%CI (0.00-0.13) (I2=75.6%, P=0.0064) (Figure 4D); pooled DOR was 3754.05, 95%CI (1047.91-13448.55) (I2=15.1%, P=0.3163) (Figure 4E); AUC=0.9973, Q*=0.9810 (Figure 4F).

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

The diagnostic efficiency of Cobas®: pooled summary sensitivity (A), specificity (B), PLR (C), NLR (D), DOR (E), sROC (F).

Xpert Xpress

Five articles reported this method were included. The results revealed that the pooled sensitivity was 0.99, 95%CI (0.98-1.00) (I2=0%, P=0.7132) (Figure 5A); pooled specificity was 0.97, 95%CI (0.95-0.98) (I2=42%, P=0.1417) (Figure 5B); pooled PLR was 27.44, 95%CI (16.00-47.06) (I2=0%, P=0.4150) (Figure 5C); pooled NLR was 0.01, 95%CI (0.00-0.03) (I2=0%, P=0.5535) (Figure 5D); pooled DOR was 3488.15, 95%CI (868.18-14014.59) (I2=0%, P=0.6383) (Figure 5E); AUC=0.9977, Q*=0.9829 (Figure 5F).

Figure 5.
Figure 5.

The diagnostic efficiency of Xpert Xpress: pooled summary sensitivity (A), specificity (B), PLR (C), NLR (D), DOR (E), sROC (F).

RT-LAMP

Six articles exhibited this method were included. The results suggested that the pooled sensitivity was 0.98, 95%CI (0.94-0.99) (I2=25.5%, P=0.2429) (Figure 6A); pooled specificity was 0.99, 95%CI (0.97-1.0) (I2=41.1%, P=0.1312) (Figure 6B); pooled PLR was 36.22, 95%CI (16.11-81.40) (I2=16.9%, P=0.3045) (Figure 6C); pooled NLR was 0.04, 95%CI (0.02-0.08) (I2=0%, P=0.7542) (Figure 6D); pooled DOR was 751.24, 95%CI (227.79-2477.54) (I2=7%, P=0.3716) (Figure 6E); AUC=0.9905, Q*=0.9596 (Figure 6F).

Figure 6.
Figure 6.

The diagnostic efficiency of RT-LAMP: pooled summary sensitivity (A), specificity (B), PLR (C), NLR (D), DOR (E), sROC (F).

Publication bias

The funnel plot exhibited that no significant publication bias in analysis on ePlex, Panther Fusion, Simplexa, RT-LAMP, Cobas® and Xpert Xpress, because of the relatively symmetrical in this funnel plot (all P-value >0.1)(Supplementary Figure 3).

Supplementary Figure 3.
Supplementary Figure 3.

Plot of Deeks asymmetry test for publication bias in different methods: ePlex (A); Panther Fusion (B); Simplexa (C); Cobas® (D); RT-LAMP (E); Xpert Xpress (F).

Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic is putting enormous pressure on clinical and public health laboratories. The COVID-19 pandemic may be caused by widespread transmission, viral detection is key to isolate positive patients and stop viral transmission(44-48). rRT-PCR is the most reliable and widely used technology to diagnose viruses including coronaviruses(44-48). However, rRT-PCR has some limitations, which can not meet the huge demand for the global pandemic of COVID-19. Recently, the US FDA has been authorized multiple rapid molecular tests to meet the huge diagnostic need. Different diagnostic methods have proposed different virus targets for detection of the virus, which would detect SARS-CoV-2 and other related beta coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV, including RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), envelope (E), spike (S), Open Reading Frame (ORF) 1a and nucleocapsid (N)(21, 47, 51, 52). This article discusses some of the diagnostic methods include EUA-granted assays.

To date, this study was the first meta-analysis on systematically evaluating the diagnostic efficiency of different method for detecting COVID-19. In this study, we analyzed the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, AUC and Q* on each methods (ePlex, Panther Fusion, Simplexa, Cobas®, Xpert Xpress and RT-LAMP), respectively. The results demonstrated that these above methods bear higher sensitivity and specificity, and might be efficient methods complement to the gold standard.

The ePlex assay targets the N gene of SARS-CoV-2, which is an in vitro diagnostic test. The ePlex has a relatively short turnaround time, simple operational flow, but a shortage of supply and inventory limits its full implementation.

The Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay targets two conserved regions of ORF1ab in the same fluorescence channel. This platform is automated, high-throughput systems that can process >1,000 specimens in 24 hours, which is met the huge diagnostic need.

Simplexa COVID-19 Direct assay targeted two distinct regions of the SARS-COV-2 genome, the surface (S) gene and the open reading frame 1AB(ORF1ab), distinguish with FAM and JOE fluorescent probes. Compared with RT-PCR, which requires nucleic acid extraction from clinical samples, Simplexa COVID-19 Direct assay can be detected directly from clinical samples. This detection method is easy to operate and does not require additional equipment such as a centrifuge or extraction system, which indicated is promising for laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 and field application.

Cobas® SARS-CoV-2 is a qualitative dual target assay, includes the ORF1/a nonstructural regional unique to SARS-CoV-2 and a region on the E gene, which is conserved across the sarbecovirus subgenus. Cobas® SARS-CoV-2 is based on fully automated sample preparation (nucleic acid extraction and purification) followed by PCR amplification and detection(53). Automated solutions for molecular diagnostics can help process large numbers of samples, save testing time, allow non - professional operators. The assay has passed clinical evaluation and received EUA from the U.S. FDA(54-56).

The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay targets two genes, the E-gene (Sarbeco specific) and N2-gene (SARS-CoV-2 specific), which received EUA status on March 20, 2020. The Xpert test platform integrates specimen processing, nucleic acid extraction, reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction amplification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and amplicon detection in a single cartridge, which improves actionability overall. This assay is simple to operate with the least technical interventions, and FDA has authorized trained non-laboratorians to test.

RT-LAMP methodology is regarded as a new generation diagnostics(57), which was developed by Notomi et al.in 2000(58). This method has high sensitivity, high specificity, simple method, low cost and time saving, which has been widely applied for the detection of influenza virus, MERS-CoV, West Nile virus, Ebola virus, Zika virus, yellow fever virus, and a variety of other pathogens(59-64). The detection results are based on colorimetric display is easy to understand and does not require any expensive equipment which is suitable for countries with limited laboratory capacity.

We also encountered some limitations: i) the sample size of each method for detecting COVID-19 was relatively small. ii) the heterogeneity of some studies was significant though we have divided this meta-analysis based on the different methods, which might affect the stability of results to some extent. Therefore, more well designed study involving the different methods with a large sample size is urgent to be conducted.

Summarily, these methods (ePlex, Panther Fusion, Simplexa, Cobas®, Xpert Xpress and RT-LAMP) bear higher sensitivity and specificity, and might be efficient methods complement to the gold standard.

Data Availability

Not applicable

Transparency declaration

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding

none

Access to data

not applicable

Contribution

Haitao Yang, Yuzhu Lan and Baosong Xie designed this study. The searching and data extracted were performed by Haitao Yang and Yuzhu Lan. Xiujuan Yao and sheng Lin analyzed the data, then created tables and figures. Haitao Yang and Yuzhu Chen drafted the manuscript. Xiujuan Yao and sheng Lin revised this manuscript. all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments

none

References

  1. 1.↵
    Du Toit A. Outbreak of a novel coronavirus. Nat Rev Microbiol 2020;18(3):123.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.
    Gralinski LE, Menachery VD. Return of the Coronavirus: 2019-nCoV. Viruses 2020; 12(2):135.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.
    Menachery VD, Yount BJ, Debbink K, Agnihothram S, Gralinski LE, Plante JA, et al. A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence. Nat Med 2015; 21(12):1508–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.
    Lu H, Stratton CW, Tang YW. Outbreak of pneumonia of unknown etiology in Wuhan, China: The mystery and the miracle. J Med Virol 2020; 92(4):401–2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.
    Lu R, Zhao X, Li J, Niu P, Yang B, Wu H, et al. Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding. Lancet 2020; 395(10224):565–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.
    The Lancet. Emerging understandings of 2019-nCoV. Lancet 2020; 395(10221):311.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.
    Zhou P, Yang XL, Wang XG, Hu B, Zhang L, Zhang W, et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature 2020; 579(7798):270–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Wu F, Zhao S, Yu B, Chen YM, Wang W, Song ZG, et al. A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. Nature 2020; 579(7798):265–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, Zhu F, Liu X, Zhang J, et al. Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA 2020; 323(11):1061–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu Y, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020; 395(10223):497–506.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Chen N, Zhou M, Dong X, Qu J, Gong F, Han Y, et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. Lancet 2020; 395(10223):507–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Chan JF, Yuan S, Kok KH, To KK, Chu H, Yang J, et al. A familial cluster of pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating person-to-person transmission: a study of a family cluster. Lancet 2020; 395(10223):514–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.
    Wei M, Yuan J, Liu Y, Fu T, Yu X, Zhang ZJ. Novel Coronavirus Infection in Hospitalized Infants Under 1 Year of Age in China. JAMA 2020; 323(13):1313–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.
    The epidemiological characteristics of an outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus diseases (COVID-19) in China]. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi, 2020;41(2):145–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Yu P, Zhu J, Zhang Z, Han Y. A Familial Cluster of Infection Associated With the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Indicating Possible Person-to-Person Transmission During the Incubation Period. J Infect Dis 2020; 221(11):1757–61.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    World Healthy Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Situation Report – 141. World Health Organization, Geneva. Available via https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200514-covid-19-sitrep-115.pdf?sfvrsn=3fce8d3c_6. Accessed 9 June 2020.
  17. 17.↵
    Salzberger B, Gluck T, Ehrenstein B. Successful containment of COVID-19: the WHO-Report on the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Infection 2020; 48(2):151–3.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    Cheng VCC, Wong SC, Chen JHK, Yip CCY, Chuang VWM, Tsang OTY, et al. Escalating infection control response to the rapidly evolving epidemiology of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to SARS-CoV-2 in Hong Kong. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2020; 41(5):493–8.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    Jiang S, Du L, Shi Z. An emerging coronavirus causing pneumonia outbreak in Wuhan, China: calling for developing therapeutic and prophylactic strategies. Emerg Microbes Infect 2020; 9(1):275–7.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Wu F, Zhao S, Yu B, Chen YM, Wang W, Song ZG, et al. Author Correction: A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. Nature 2020; 580(7803):E7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    Chu DKW, Pan Y, Cheng SMS, Hui KPY, Krishnan P, Liu Y, et al. Molecular Diagnosis of a Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Causing an Outbreak of Pneumonia. Clin Chem 2020; 66(4):549–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Zhou P, Yang XL, Wang XG, Hu B, Zhang L, Zhang W, et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature 2020; 579(7798):270–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    Sheridan C. Coronavirus and the race to distribute reliable diagnostics. Nat Biotechnol 2020; 38(4):382–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.
    Rhoads DD, Cherian SS, Roman K, Stempak LM, Schmotzer CL, Sadri N. Comparison of Abbott ID Now, Diasorin Simplexa, and CDC FDA EUA methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal and nasal swabs from individuals diagnosed with COVID-19. J Clin Microbiol 2020; 00760–20.
  25. 25.↵
    Moran A, Beavis KG, Matushek SM, Ciaglia C, Francois N, Tesic V, et al. The Detection of SARS-CoV-2 using the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 Assays. J Clin Microbiol 2020; 00772–20.
  26. 26.↵
    Zhen W, Manji R, Smith E, Berry GJ. Comparison of Four Molecular In Vitro Diagnostic Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Nasopharyngeal Specimens. J Clin Microbiol 2020; 00743–20.
  27. 27.↵
    Zhen W, Smith E, Manji R, Schron D, Berry GJ. Clinical Evaluation of Three Sample-To-Answer Platforms for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2. J Clin Microbiol 2020; 00783–20.
  28. 28.↵
    Uhteg K, Jarrett J, Richards M, Howard C, Morehead E, Geahr M, et al. Comparing the analytical performance of three SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic assays. J Clin Virol 2020; 127:104384.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    Lieberman JA, Pepper G, Naccache SN, Huang ML, Jerome KR, Greninger AL. Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory Developed Assays for in vitro Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories. J Clin Microbiol 2020; 00821–20.
  30. 30.↵
    Hogan CA, Sahoo MK, Huang C, Garamani N, Stevens B, Zehnder J, et al. Comparison of the Panther Fusion and a laboratory-developed test targeting the envelope gene for detection of SARS-CoV-2. J Clin Virol 2020; 127:104383.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. 31.↵
    Bordi L, Piralla A, Lalle E, Giardina F, Colavita F, Tallarita M, et al. Rapid and sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using the Simplexa COVID-19 direct assay. J Clin Virol 2020; 128:104416.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. 32.↵
    Pujadas E, Ibeh N, Hernandez MM, Waluszko A, Sidorenko T, Flores V, et al. Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection from nasopharyngeal swab samples by the Roche cobas 6800 SARS-CoV-2 test and a laboratory-developed real-time RT-PCR test. J Med Virol 2020; 25988.
  33. 33.
    Ishige T, Murata S, Taniguchi T, Miyabe A, Kitamura K, Kawasaki K, et al. Highly sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by multiplex rRT-PCR for molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 by clinical laboratories. Clin Chim Acta 2020; 507:139–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    Poljak M, Korva M, Knap GN, Fujs KK, Sagadin M, Ursic T, et al. Clinical Evaluation of the cobas SARS-CoV-2 Test and a Diagnostic Platform Switch during 48 Hours in the Midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Clin Microbiol 2020; 58(6):e00599–20.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.
    Wolters F, van de Bovenkamp J, van den Bosch B, van den Brink S, Broeders M, Chung NH, et al. Multi-center evaluation of cepheid xpert(R) xpress SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. J Clin Virol 2020; 128:104426.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.
    Broder K, Babiker A, Myers C, White T, Jones H, Cardella J, et al. Test Agreement Between Roche Cobas 6800 and Cepheid GeneXpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Assays at High Cycle Threshold Ranges. J Clin Microbiol 2020; 01187–20.
  37. 37.
    Loeffelholz MJ, Alland D, Butler-Wu SM, Pandey U, Perno CF, Nava A, et al. Multicenter Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 Test. J Clin Microbiol 2020; 00926–20.
  38. 38.↵
    Baek YH, Um J, Antigua KJC, Park JH, Kim Y, Oh S, et al. Development of a reverse transcription-loop-mediated isothermal amplification as a rapid early-detection method for novel SARS-CoV-2. Emerg Microbes Infec 2020; 9(1):998–1007.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.
    Yan C, Cui J, Huang L, Du B, Chen L, Xue G, et al. Rapid and visual detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) by a reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020; 26(6):773–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. 40.
    Huang WE, Lim B, Hsu CC, Xiong D, Wu W, Yu Y, et al. RT-LAMP for rapid diagnosis of coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Microb Biotechnol 2020; 13(4):950–61.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.
    Broughton JP, Deng X, Yu G, Fasching CL, Servellita V, Singh J, et al. CRISPR-Cas12-based detection of SARS-CoV-2. Nat Biotechnol 2020; doi:10.1038/s41587-020-0513-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.
    Lu R, Wu X, Wan Z, Li Y, Jin X, Zhang C. A Novel Reverse Transcription Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Method for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2. Int J Mol Sci 2020;21(8):2826.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    Lu R, Wu X, Wan Z, Li Y, Zuo L, Qin J, et al. Development of a Novel Reverse Transcription Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Method for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2. Virol Sin 2020; 1–4.
  44. 44.↵
    Coronaviridae Study Group of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. The species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2. Nat Microbiol 2020; 5(4):536–44.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.
    Tang YW, Schmitz JE, Persing DH, Stratton CW. Laboratory Diagnosis of COVID-19: Current Issues and Challenges. J Clin Microbiol 2020; 58(6):e00512–20.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.
    Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, Zhu F, Liu X, Zhang J, et al. Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA 2020; 323(11):1061–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, Molenkamp R, Meijer A, Chu DK, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill 2020; 25(3): 2000045.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    Jin YH, Cai L, Cheng ZS, Cheng H, Deng T, Fan YP, et al. A rapid advice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infected pneumonia (standard version). Mil Med Res 2020; 7(1):4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.
    Li Y, Wan Z, Hu Y, Zhou Y, Chen Q, Zhang C. A mismatch-tolerant RT-quantitative PCR: application to broad-spectrum detection of respiratory syncytial virus. Biotechniques 2019; 66(5):225–30.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.
    Wan Z, Zhang Y, He Z, Liu J, Lan K, Hu Y, et al. A Melting Curve-Based Multiplex RT-qPCR Assay for Simultaneous Detection of Four Human Coronaviruses. Int J Mol Sci 2016; 17(11):1880.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    Chan JF, Lau SK, To KK, Cheng VC, Woo PC, Yuen KY. Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus: another zoonotic betacoronavirus causing SARS-like disease. Clin Microbiol Rev 2015; 28(2):465–522.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    Mackay IM, Arden KE. MERS coronavirus: diagnostics, epidemiology and transmission. Virol J 2015; 12:222.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    Eigner U, Reucher S, Hefner N, Staffa-Peichl S, Kolb M, Betz U, et al. Clinical evaluation of multiplex RT-PCR assays for the detection of influenza A/B and respiratory syncytial virus using a high throughput system. J Virol Methods 2019; 269:49–54.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    Yao JD, Young S, Heilek GM, Marino E, Paxinos EE, Marins EG, et al. Diagnosis and monitoring of HCV infection using the cobas((R)) HCV test for use on the cobas((R)) 6800/8800 systems. J Clin Virol 2018; 102:63–9.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.
    Vermehren J, Stelzl E, Maasoumy B, Michel-Treil V, Berkowski C, Marins EG, et al. Multicenter Comparison Study of both Analytical and Clinical Performance across Four Roche Hepatitis C Virus RNA Assays Utilizing Different Platforms. J Clin Microbiol 2017; 55(4):1131–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    Van Der Pol B, Fife K, Taylor SN, Nye MB, Chavoustie SE, Eisenberg DL, et al. Evaluation of the Performance of the Cobas CT/NG Test for Use on the Cobas 6800/8800 Systems for Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in Male and Female Urogenital Samples. J Clin Microbiol 2019; 57(4):e01996–18.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    Sahoo PR, Sethy K, Mohapatra S, Panda D. Loop mediated isothermal amplification: An innovative gene amplification technique for animal diseases. Vet World 2016; 9(5):465–9.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    Notomi T, Okayama H, Masubuchi H, Yonekawa T, Watanabe K, Amino N, et al. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification of DNA. Nucleic Acids Res 2000; 28(12):E63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    Ge Y, Wu B, Qi X, Zhao K, Guo X, Zhu Y, et al. Rapid and sensitive detection of novel avian-origin influenza A (H7N9) virus by reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification combined with a lateral-flow device. PloS One 2013; 8(8):e69941.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.
    Huang P, Wang H, Cao Z, Jin H, Chi H, Zhao J, et al. A Rapid and Specific Assay for the Detection of MERS-CoV. Front Microbiol 2018; 9:1101.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.
    Cao Z, Wang H, Wang L, Li L, Jin H, Xu C, et al. Visual Detection of West Nile Virus Using Reverse Transcription Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Combined with a Vertical Flow Visualization Strip. Front Microbiol 2016; 7:554.
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.
    Chotiwan N, Brewster CD, Magalhaes T, Weger-Lucarelli J, Duggal NK, Ruckert C, et al. Rapid and specific detection of Asian- and African-lineage Zika viruses. Sci Transl Med 2017; 9(388):eaag0538.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. 63.
    Li H, Wang X, Liu W, Wei X, Lin W, Li E, et al. Survey and Visual Detection of Zaire ebolavirus in Clinical Samples Targeting the Nucleoprotein Gene in Sierra Leone. Front Microbiol 2015; 6:1332.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    Kwallah Ao, Inoue S, Muigai AW, Kubo T, Sang R, Morita K, et al. A real-time reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for the rapid detection of yellow fever virus. J Virol Methods 2013; 193(1):23–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Posted June 26, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Evaluation on the diagnostic efficiency of different methods in detecting COVID-19
Haitao Yang, Yuzhu Lan, Xiujuan Yao, Sheng Lin, Baosong Xie
medRxiv 2020.06.25.20139931; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.25.20139931
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area