Background and Objectives: Rapid and accurate identification of suspicious SARS-CoV-2 patients is essential in con- trolling the infection. Numerous commercial kits are developed which target diverse regions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus ge- nome. This systematic review addresses the lack of comprehensive analyses comparing the diagnostic value of commercial kits for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We aimed to compare diagnostic value of commercial SARS-CoV-2 kits in clinical samples using a systematic review and meta-analysis method. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on main databases of Medline (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science and Scopus from 2019 to October 2021 using the appropriate keywords. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guideline PRISMA checklist was used to select eligible studies. Results: The most frequent introduced kits were from USA (33 cases) and China (27). Among all studies, 11, 9 and 7 papers had assessed FDA –CDC, Sansure and Allplex kits, respectively. The majority of the kits were based on RT-PCR (52 cases) and the most frequent genes target was N protein (63 cases). The overall sensitivity of the kits was 80.5%. The lowest sensi- tivity was reported for Daan Kit, while the highest sensitivity was seen for many kits. The specificity of the kits ranged from 87.9% to 99.8% and the overall specificity was 97.9%. Both PPV and NPV of the kits ranged from 87.9% to 99.8% for PPV and 82.9% to 99.8% for NPV. Conclusion: Based on DOR obtained from three different formulas, GeneFinder, InBios, NxTAG, Simplexa and FDA-CDC kit have better detection performance. The GeneFinder Kit appears to be among the more suitable options regarding cost-ef- fectiveness for each reaction.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Sepide Kadivarian
Mosayeb Rostamian
Sara Kooti
Iranian Journal of Microbiology
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Kadivarian et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/68ef858cc6a308ba06355632 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/ijm.v17i5.19875
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: