The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection
Clare Davenport,Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez,Miriam Mateos-Haro,Sarah Berhane,Jacqueline Dinnes,René Spijker,Diana Buitrago-Garcia,Agustín Ciapponi,Yemisi Takwoingi,Jonathan J Deeks,Devy Emperador,Mariska M G Leeflang,Ann Van den Bruel,Cochrane COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd014780
IF: 8.4
2024-12-17
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Abstract:Sample collection is a key driver of accuracy in the diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Viral load may vary at different anatomical sampling sites and accuracy may be compromised by difficulties obtaining specimens and the expertise of the person taking the sample. It is important to optimise sampling accuracy within cost, safety and accessibility constraints. To compare the sensitivity of different sampling collection sites and methods for the detection of current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection with any molecular or antigen‐based test. Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 22 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions. We included studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic people with suspected SARS‐CoV‐2 infection undergoing testing. We included studies of any design that compared results from different sample types (anatomical location, operator, collection device) collected from the same participant within a 24‐hour period. Within a sample pair, we defined a reference sample and an index sample collected from the same participant within the same clinical encounter (within 24 hours). Where the sample comparison was different anatomical sites, the reference standard was defined as a nasopharyngeal or combined naso/oropharyngeal sample collected into the same sample container and the index sample as the alternative anatomical site. Where the sample comparison was concerned with differences in the sample collection method from the same site, we defined the reference sample as that closest to standard practice for that sample type. Where the sample pair comparison was concerned with differences in personnel collecting the sample, the more skilled or experienced operator was considered the reference sample. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS‐2 and QUADAS‐C checklists, tailored to this review. We present estimates of the difference in the sensitivity (reference sample (%) minus index sample sensitivity (%)) in a pair and as an average across studies for each index sampling method using forest plots and tables. We examined heterogeneity between studies according to population (age, symptom status) and index sample (time post‐symptom onset, operator expertise, use of transport medium) characteristics. This review includes 106 studies reporting 154 evaluations and 60,523 sample pair comparisons, of which 11,045 had SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Ninety evaluations were of saliva samples, 37 nasal, seven oropharyngeal, six gargle, six oral and four combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples. Four evaluations were of the effect of operator expertise on the accuracy of three different sample types. The majority of included evaluations (146) used molecular tests, of which 140 used RT‐PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction). Eight evaluations were of nasal samples used with Ag‐RDTs (rapid antigen tests). The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (35/106, 33%) or the USA (27%) and conducted in dedicated COVID‐19 testing clinics or in ambulatory hospital settings (53%). Targeted screening or contact tracing accounted for only 4% of evaluations. Where reported, the majority of evaluations were of adults (91/154, 59%), 28 (18%) were in mixed populations with only seven (4%) in children. The median prevalence of confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 was 23% (interquartile (IQR) 13%‐40%). Risk of bias and applicability assessment were hampered by poor reporting in 77% and 65% of included studies, respectively. Risk of bias was low across all domains in only 3% of evaluations due to inappropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria, unclear recruitment, lack of blinding, nonrandomised sampling order or differences in testing kit within a sample pair. Sixty‐eight percent of evaluation cohorts were judged as being at high or unclear applicability concern either due to inflation of the prevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in study populations by selectively including individuals with confirmed PCR‐positive samples or because there was insufficient detail to allow replication of sample collection. When used with RT‐PCR • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between gargle and nasopharyngeal samples (on average ‐1 percentage points, 95% CI ‐5 to +2, based on 6 evaluations, 2138 sample pairs, of which 389 had SARS‐CoV‐2). • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between saliva collection from the deep throat and nasopharyngeal samples (on average +10 percentage points, 95% CI ‐1 to +21, based on 2192 sample pairs, of which 730 had SARS‐CoV‐2). • There was evidence that sal -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal