Abstract
As COVID-19 testing is rolled out increasingly widely, the use of a range of alternative testing methods will be beneficial in ensuring testing systems are resilient and adaptable to different clinical and public health scenarios. Here, we compare and discuss the diagnostic performance of a range of different molecular assays designed to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in people with suspected COVID-19. Using findings from a systematic review of 103 studies, we categorised COVID-19 molecular assays into 12 different test classes, covering point-of-care tests, various alternative RT-PCR protocols, and alternative methods such as isothermal amplification. We carried out meta-analyses to estimate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of each test class. We also estimated the positive and negative predictive values of all diagnostic test classes across a range of prevalence rates. Using previously validated RT-PCR assays as a reference standard, 11 out of 12 classes showed a summary sensitivity estimate of at least 92% and a specificity estimate of at least 99%. Several diagnostic test classes were estimated to have positive predictive values of 100% throughout the investigated prevalence spectrum, whilst estimated negative predictive values were more variable and sensitive to disease prevalence. We also report the results of clinical utility models that can be used to determine the information gained from a positive and negative test result in each class, and whether each test is more suitable for confirmation or exclusion of disease. Our analysis suggests that several tests exist that are suitable alternatives to standard RT-PCR and we discuss scenarios in which these could be most beneficial, such as where time to test result is critical or, where resources are constrained. However, we also highlight methodological concerns with the design and conduct of many included studies, and also the existence of likely publication bias for some test classes. Our results should be interpreted with these shortcomings in mind. Furthermore, our conclusions on test performance are limited to their use in symptomatic populations: we did not identify sufficient suitable data to allow analysis of testing in asymptomatic populations.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The rapid collaborative review and the resulting manuscript were established within the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA), which received funding from the European Union Health Programme (2014-2020) for the project / joint action 724130 / EUnetHTA JA3. AM, DJ, MP, JW, SM received non-financial support from EUnetHTA due to their Associate Membership, the remainder of authors as EUnetHTA members received co-funding. The content of this publication represents the views of the author(s) only and is his/her sole responsibility; it cannot be considered to reflect the views of the European Commission and/or the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency or any other body of the European Union. The European Commission and the Agency do not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.
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 applicable
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
The rapid collaborative review, project plan and plain language summary can be found at the link provided below.
