Abstract
Many recent studies reported coronavirus point of care tests (POCTs) based on isothermal amplification. However, the performances of these tests have not been systematically evaluated. We searched databases for studies that provide data to calculate sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). We included 43 studies on 5204 specimens. Most studies had high risk of patient selection and index test bias but low risk in other domains. Most studies (n = 21) used reverse transcribed loop mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) to diagnose Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Summary estimated ln(DOR) for RT-LAMP of RNA purified COVID-19 samples is 6.50 (95%CI 5.25-7.76), similar to previously reported value for RT-LAMP of other RNA virus. RT-LAMP from crude samples has significantly lower ln(DOR) at 4.46 (95%CI 3.53-5.38). SAMBA-II has the highest ln(DOR) at 8.00 (95%CI 6.14-9.87). Abbott ID Now performance is similar to RT-LAMP of crude sample. The performances of CRISPR diagnosis and RT-LAMP are not significantly different. Types of coronaviruses and publication status have no significant effect on diagnosis performance. Existing nucleic acid POCTs, particularly RT-LAMP, CRISPR diagnosis and SAMBA-II, have good diagnostic performance. Future work should focus on improving a study design to minimize the risk of biases.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding
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 required
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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 in the manuscript or supplementary materials.
