Detection profile of SARS‐CoV‐2 using RT‐PCR in different types of clinical specimens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Journal of Medical Virology - Tập 93 Số 2 - Trang 719-725 - 2021
George M. Bwire1, Mtebe Majigo2, Belinda J. Njiro2, Akili Mawazo3
1School of Pharmacy, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
2School of Medicine, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania
3Institute of Allied Health Sciences, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Tóm tắt

AbstractTesting is one of the commendable measures for curbing the spread of coronavirus disease (COVID‐19). But, it should be done using the most appropriate specimen and an accurate diagnostic test such as real‐time reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (qRT‐PCR). Therefore, a systematic review was conducted to determine the positive detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) in different clinical specimens using qRT‐PCR. A total of 8136 pooled clinical specimens were analyzed to detect SARS‐CoV‐2, the majority were nasopharyngeal swabs (69.6%). A lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens had a positive rate (PR) of 71.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60.3%‐82.3%) while no virus was detected in 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%). A 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%) whereas no SARS‐CoV‐2 was detected in urine samples. Feces had a PR of 32.8% (95% CI:1 5.8%‐49.8%). Nasopharyngeal swab, a widely used specimen had a PR of 45.5% (95% CI: 31.2%‐59.7%). In this study, SARS‐CoV‐2 was highly detected in LRT specimens while no virus was detected in urinogenital specimens. BLF had the highest PR followed by rectal swab then sputum. Nasopharyngeal swab which is widely used had moderate PR. Low PR was recorded in oropharyngeal swab and blood samples while no virus was found in urine samples. Last, the virus was detected in feces, suggesting SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission by the fecal route.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30566-3

10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30251-8

Zhao Y, 2020, Single‐cell RNA expression profiling of ACE2, the putative receptor of Wuhan 2019‐nCov, bioRxiv [Internet]

10.3390/jcm9030841

10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.009

Wang W, 2020, Detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 in different types of clinical specimens, JAMA—J Am Med Assoc, 323, 1843

10.7326/M20-0991

EastM CommitteeI WhoE SurveillanceGLaboratory testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) in suspected human cases.2019.2020.

10.1093/cid/ciaa199

Shamseer L, 2015, Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta‐analysis protocols (prisma‐p) 2015: elaboration and explanation, BMJ [Internet], 349, 1

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.012

10.1016/j.mla.2011.05.006

10.1038/s41591-020-0817-4

10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30154-9

10.7150/ijbs.45357

10.1016/j.ijid.2020.04.023

10.1186/1471-2288-9-80

Ocan M, 2019, Persistence of chloroquine resistance alleles in malaria endemic countries: a systematic review of burden and risk factors, Malar J [Internet], 18, 1

HerzogR Álvarez‐pasquinMJ DíazC et al. Are healthcare workers’ intentions to vaccinate related to their knowledge beliefs and attitudes? a systematic review.2013.

WangD et al. Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan China.2020;1–9.

XiongY LiuY CaoL et al. Transcriptomic characteristics of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and peripheral blood mononuclear cells in COVID‐19 patients.2020;1751.

Qiu H, 2020, Clinical and epidemiological features of 36 children with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) in Zhejiang, China: an observational cohort study, Lancet Infect Dis [Internet], 2019, 1

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Medical Virology

Tập 93 Số 2

719-725

Thông tin tác giả