Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: a scoping review of current guidance.
Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: a scoping review of current guidance.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043004
复制
发表时间：
2021-01-06
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Zamora J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Arevalo-Rodriguez I;Seron P;Buitrago-García D;Ciapponi A;Muriel A;Zambrano-Achig P;Del Campo R;Galán-Montemayor JC;Simancas-Racines D;Perez-Molina JA;Khan KS;Zamora J
用于COVID-19筛查、诊断和随访的检测一直是争论的主题。一些组织已经制定了关于检测COVID-19的正式建议，以协助控制该疾病。我们整理、描述和评估了目前世界上关于检测在控制SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19中的作用和应用的建议。我们在PubMed、EMBASE、LILACS、冠状病毒开放获取项目活证据数据库以及TRIP数据库、ECRI指南信托基金、GIN数据库等相关网站检索了自2020年9月21日至2020年9月21日期间提供COVID-19检测建议的文件。两位审稿人将资格标准应用于可能相关的引文，没有语言或地理限制。我们一式两份提取数据，包括使用研究和评估指南评估ii工具对方法学质量进行评估。我们收录了47篇相关文献和327条检测建议。关于文件的质量，我们发现得分最低的领域是“编辑独立性”（中位数=4%）和“适用性”（中位数=6%）。只有6个文档在“开发的严谨性”领域获得了至少50%的分数。一些重要建议侧重于疑似病例的诊断（48%）和去隔离措施（11%）。最常推荐的检查是逆转录pcr （RT-PCR）测定（87项建议）和胸部CT（38项建议）。指南开发人员在22个领域达成了一致意见，包括使用RT-PCR进行SARS-Cov-2确认、支气管镜检查的有限作用、使用胸部CT和胸部x射线进行严重程度分级以及对其他呼吸道病原体进行联合评估。对COVID-19检测建议的首次范围审查显示，所纳入的指导文件在方法学质量方面存在许多局限性，这可能影响临床医生对其实施的信心。未来的指导文件应包含一套最低限度的关键方法特征，以增强其对决策的适用性。
Testing used in screening, diagnosis and follow-up of COVID-19 has been a subject of debate. Several organisations have developed formal advice about testing for COVID-19 to assist in the control of the disease. We collated, delineated and appraised current worldwide recommendations about the role and applications of tests to control SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. We searched for documents providing recommendations for COVID-19 testing in PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database and relevant websites such as TRIP database, ECRI Guidelines Trust, the GIN database, from inception to 21 September 2020. Two reviewers applied the eligibility criteria to potentially relevant citations without language or geographical restrictions. We extracted data in duplicate, including assessment of methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II tool. We included 47 relevant documents and 327 recommendations about testing. Regarding the quality of the documents, we found that the domains with the lowest scores were ‘Editorial independence’ (Median=4%) and ‘Applicability’ (Median=6%). Only six documents obtained at least 50% score for the ‘Rigour of development’ domain. An important number of recommendations focused on the diagnosis of suspected cases (48%) and deisolation measures (11%). The most frequently recommended test was the reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assay (87 recommendations) and the chest CT (38 recommendations). There were 22 areas of agreement among guidance developers, including the use of RT-PCR for SARS-Cov-2 confirmation, the limited role of bronchoscopy, the use chest CT and chest X-rays for grading severity and the co-assessment for other respiratory pathogens. This first scoping review of recommendations for COVID-19 testing showed many limitations in the methodological quality of included guidance documents that could affect the confidence of clinicians in their implementation. Future guidance documents should incorporate a minimum set of key methodological characteristics to enhance their applicability for decision making.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.15557/pimr.2020.0003
发表时间：
2020-01-01
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
通讯作者：
--
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Garritty CM;Norris SL;Moher D
通讯作者：
Moher D
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Arevalo-Rodriguez I;Buitrago-Garcia D;Simancas-Racines D;Zambrano-Achig P;Del Campo R;Ciapponi A;Sued O;Martinez-García L;Rutjes AW;Low N;Bossuyt PM;Perez-Molina JA;Zamora J
通讯作者：
Zamora J
影响因子：
8
作者：
Cordovilla R;Álvarez S;Llanos L;Nuñez Ares A;Cases Viedma E;Díaz-Pérez D;Flandes J
通讯作者：
Flandes J
影响因子：
14.6
作者：
Brouwers, Melissa C.;Kho, Michelle E.;Zitzelsberger, Louise
通讯作者：
Zitzelsberger, Louise