Abstract:COVID‐19 illness is highly variable, ranging from infection with no symptoms through to pneumonia and life‐threatening consequences. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of sense of smell (anosmia) or taste (ageusia), can help flag early on if the disease is present. Such information could be used either to rule out COVID‐19 disease, or to identify people who need to go for COVID‐19 diagnostic tests. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID‐19 clinics, has COVID‐19. We undertook electronic searches up to 10 June 2021 in the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications. We used artificial intelligence text analysis to conduct an initial classification of documents. We did not apply any language restrictions. Studies were eligible if they included people with clinically suspected COVID‐19, or recruited known cases with COVID‐19 and also controls without COVID‐19 from a single‐gate cohort. Studies were eligible when they recruited people presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies that included people who contracted SARS‐CoV‐2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards. Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract, and full‐text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS‐2 checklist, and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Analyses were restricted to prospective studies only. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random‐effects meta‐analysis whenever five or more primary prospective studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable. We identified 90 studies; for this update we focused on the results of 42 prospective studies with 52,608 participants. Prevalence of COVID‐19 disease varied from 3.7% to 60.6% with a median of 27.4%. Thirty‐five studies were set in emergency departments or outpatient test centres (46,878 participants), three in primary care settings (1230 participants), two in a mixed population of in‐ and outpatients in a paediatric hospital setting (493 participants), and two overlapping studies in nursing homes (4007 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild COVID‐19 disease from COVID‐19 pneumonia, so we present the results for both conditions together. Twelve studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because they used a high level of preselection to decide whether reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) testing was needed, or because they enrolled a non‐consecutive sample, or because they excluded individuals while they were part of the study base. We rated 36 of the 42 studies as high risk of bias for the index tests because there was little or no detail on how, by whom and when, the symptoms were measured. For most studies, eligibility for testing was dependent on the local case definition and testing criteria that were in effect at the time of the study, meaning most people who were included in studies had already been referred to health services based on the symptoms that we are evaluating in this review. The applicability of the results of this review iteration improved in comparison with the previous reviews. This version has more studies of people presenting to ambulatory settings, which is where the majority of assessments for COVID‐19 take place. Only three studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 96 symptoms or combinations of signs and symptoms. Evidence on individual signs as diagnostic tests was rarely reported, so this review reports mainly on the diagnostic value of symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. RT‐PCR was the most often used reference standard (40/42 studies). Only cough (11 studies) had a summary sensitivity above 50% (62.4%, 95% CI 50.6% to 72.9%)); its specificity was low (45.4%, 95% CI 33.5% to 57.9%)). Presence of fever had a sensitivity of 37.6% (95% CI 23.4% to 54.3%) and a specificity of 75.2% (95% CI 56.3% to 87.8%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of cough was 1.14 (95% CI 1.04 -Abstract Truncated-

Diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms in acute coronary syndrome and acute myocardial infarction

Clinical Analysis of 373 Patients with Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome in a Teaching Hospital

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19 disease.

A new score for the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome in acute chest pain with non-diagnostic ECG and normal troponin

Signs and symptoms of serious illness in adults with acute abdominal pain presenting to ambulatory care: a systematic review

State of the Science: The Relevance of Symptoms in Cardiovascular Disease and Research: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Association between acute myocardial infarction symptoms and short- and long-term mortality after the event.

The Biomarkers for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Heart Failure.

The Diagnostic Value of Physical Examination and Additional Testing in Primary Care Patients With Suspected Heart Failure

Chest Pain in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Risk Stratification Tools to Rule Out Acute Coronary Syndrome

Lack of Evidence Regarding Markers Identifying Acute Heart Failure in Patients with COPD: An AI-Supported Systematic Review

The diagnostic accuracy of cardiac ultrasound for acute myocardial ischemia in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis

How to Approach Patients with Acute Chest Pain

Importance of Acute Coronary Syndrome Knowledge to Improve Early Detection and Reduce Prehospital Delay in Patient with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19.

Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive cardiac imaging modalities in patients with a history of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

Accuracy of emergency medical services (EMS) telephone triage in identifying acute coronary syndrome (ACS) for patients with chest pain: a systematic literature review

HEART vs EDACS Scores on Predicting Major Events Among Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome at the Cardiac Emergency Department

Novel Biomarkers and Their Role in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome

Comprehensive Quality Analysis of Conventional and Novel Biomarkers in Diagnosing and Predicting Prognosis of Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndrome, and Heart Failure, a Comprehensive Literature Review

Safety and efficiency of modified HEART scores without troponin or electrocardiography: an analysis based on two European out-of-hours primary care cohorts