Accuracy of NanoBiosensor-based Molecular Assays for Diagnosis of COVID-19 Compared to RT-PCR as a Reference Test: a Systematic Review

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine

Abstract

Nanobiosensors (NPBs) are biosensing platforms that incorporate nanomaterials for robust detection of biologic particles, and can be applied for clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 with acceptable accuracy. We sought to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of NPBs as an emerging alternative to RT-PCR in the clinical identification of SARS-CoV-2. Our aim was to systematically synthesize evidence to justify the diagnostic value of NPBs as a suitable replacement for RT-PCR in the clinical identification of the novel coronavirus. Methods: We searched seven literature databases including EBSCOhost Web, Embase, ProQuest, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and WHO LitCOVID to identify original records concerned with development and application of NPBs in the clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 that were published from November 1, 2019 to April 30, 2022. We then calculated the indicators of diagnostic power including sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. As part of a joint clinical investigation, we collected a total of 72 saliva specimens 24 age-matched patients with RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 on days 1, 3 and 5 following their hospitalization, which were tested using the rapid antigen diagnostic kit for SARS-CoV-2. Results: We included 13 studies that reported original findings regarding the use of different NPBs in the clinical identification of COVID-19 via molecular identification of viral surface proteins and RNA in NPS/OPS. In total, 789 NPS/OPS samples gathered from 376 COVID-19+ and 413 COVID-19– participants were surveyed by the included studies using a total of 13 distinct NPBs. Compared to the reference test or RT-qPCR, NPBs yielded a mean sensitivity of 97.07%, a mean specificity of 94.43% and a mean accuracy of 96.91%. As for the clinical investigation, saliva-based test using rapid antigen kits conferred mean accuracy rates of 83.3%, 58.3% and 62.5% on days 1, 3 and 5, respectively.

Description

Citation

Collections

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By