Differentiation of Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Postacute Sequelae by Standard Clinical Laboratory Measurements in the RECOVER Cohort.

Erlandson KM ，Geng LN ，Selvaggi CA ，Thaweethai T ，Chen P ，Erdmann NB ，Goldman JD ，Henrich TJ ，Hornig M ，Karlson EW ，Katz SD ，Kim C ，Cribbs SK ，Laiyemo AO ，Letts R ，Lin JY ，Marathe J ，Parthasarathy S ，Patterson TF ，Taylor BD ，Duffy ER ，Haack M ，Julg B ，Maranga G ，Hernandez C ，Singer NG ，Han J ，Pemu P ，Brim H ，Ashktorab H ，Charney AW ，Wisnivesky J ，Lin JJ ，Chu HY ，Go M ，Singh U ，Levitan EB ，Goepfert PA ，Nikolich JŽ ，Hsu H ，Peluso MJ ，Kelly JD ，Okumura MJ ，Flaherman VJ ，Quigley JG ，Krishnan JA ，Scholand MB ，Hess R ，Metz TD ，Costantine MM ，Rouse DJ ，Taylor BS ，Goldberg MP ，Marshall GD ，Wood J ，Warren D ，Horwitz L ，Foulkes AS ，McComsey GA ，RECOVER-Adult Cohort ... -  《-》

Persistent symptoms and clinical findings in adults with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19/post-COVID-19 syndrome in the second year after acute infection: A population-based, nested case-control study.

Self-reported health problems following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are common and often include relatively non-specific complaints such as fatigue, exertional dyspnoea, concentration or memory disturbance and sleep problems. The long-term prognosis of such post-acute sequelae of COVID-19/post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) is unknown, and data finding and correlating organ dysfunction and pathology with self-reported symptoms in patients with non-recovery from PCS is scarce. We wanted to describe clinical characteristics and diagnostic findings among patients with PCS persisting for >1 year and assessed risk factors for PCS persistence versus improvement. This nested population-based case-control study included subjects with PCS aged 18-65 years with (n = 982) and age- and sex-matched control subjects without PCS (n = 576) according to an earlier population-based questionnaire study (6-12 months after acute infection, phase 1) consenting to provide follow-up information and to undergo comprehensive outpatient assessment, including neurocognitive, cardiopulmonary exercise, and laboratory testing in four university health centres in southwestern Germany (phase 2, another 8.5 months [median, range 3-14 months] after phase 1). The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and 65% were female. At phase 2, 67.6% of the patients with PCS at phase 1 developed persistent PCS, whereas 78.5% of the recovered participants remained free of health problems related to PCS. Improvement among patients with earlier PCS was associated with mild acute index infection, previous full-time employment, educational status, and no specialist consultation and not attending a rehabilitation programme. The development of new symptoms related to PCS among participants initially recovered was associated with an intercurrent secondary SARS-CoV-2 infection and educational status. Patients with persistent PCS were less frequently never smokers (61.2% versus 75.7%), more often obese (30.2% versus 12.4%) with higher mean values for body mass index (BMI) and body fat, and had lower educational status (university entrance qualification 38.7% versus 61.5%) than participants with continued recovery. Fatigue/exhaustion, neurocognitive disturbance, chest symptoms/breathlessness and anxiety/depression/sleep problems remained the predominant symptom clusters. Exercise intolerance with post-exertional malaise (PEM) for >14 h and symptoms compatible with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome were reported by 35.6% and 11.6% of participants with persistent PCS patients, respectively. In analyses adjusted for sex-age class combinations, study centre and university entrance qualification, significant differences between participants with persistent PCS versus those with continued recovery were observed for performance in three different neurocognitive tests, scores for perceived stress, subjective cognitive disturbances, dysautonomia, depression and anxiety, sleep quality, fatigue and quality of life. In persistent PCS, handgrip strength (40.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) [39.4, 41.1]] versus 42.5 [95% CI [41.5, 43.6]] kg), maximal oxygen consumption (27.9 [95% CI [27.3, 28.4]] versus 31.0 [95% CI [30.3, 31.6]] ml/min/kg body weight) and ventilatory efficiency (minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope, 28.8 [95% CI [28.3, 29.2]] versus 27.1 [95% CI [26.6, 27.7]]) were significantly reduced relative to the control group of participants with continued recovery after adjustment for sex-age class combinations, study centre, education, BMI, smoking status and use of beta blocking agents. There were no differences in measures of systolic and diastolic cardiac function at rest, in the level of N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide blood levels or other laboratory measurements (including complement activity, markers of Epstein-Barr virus [EBV] reactivation, inflammatory and coagulation markers, serum levels of cortisol, adrenocorticotropic hormone and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate). Screening for viral persistence (PCR in stool samples and SARS-CoV-2 spike antigen levels in plasma) in a subgroup of the patients with persistent PCS was negative. Sensitivity analyses (pre-existing illness/comorbidity, obesity, medical care of the index acute infection) revealed similar findings. Patients with persistent PCS and PEM reported more pain symptoms and had worse results in almost all tests. A limitation was that we had no objective information on exercise capacity and cognition before acute infection. In addition, we did not include patients unable to attend the outpatient clinic for whatever reason including severe illness, immobility or social deprivation or exclusion. In this study, we observed that the majority of working age patients with PCS did not recover in the second year of their illness. Patterns of reported symptoms remained essentially similar, non-specific and dominated by fatigue, exercise intolerance and cognitive complaints. Despite objective signs of cognitive deficits and reduced exercise capacity, there was no major pathology in laboratory investigations, and our findings do not support viral persistence, EBV reactivation, adrenal insufficiency or increased complement turnover as pathophysiologically relevant for persistent PCS. A history of PEM was associated with more severe symptoms and more objective signs of disease and might help stratify cases for disease severity.

Peter RS ，Nieters A ，Göpel S ，Merle U ，Steinacker JM ，Deibert P ，Friedmann-Bette B ，Nieß A ，Müller B ，Schilling C ，Erz G ，Giesen R ，Götz V ，Keller K ，Maier P ，Matits L ，Parthé S ，Rehm M ，Schellenberg J ，Schempf U ，Zhu M ，Kräusslich HG ，Rothenbacher D ，Kern WV ，EPILOC Phase 2 Study Group ... -  《-》

Post-Acute Sequelae of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) After Infection During Pregnancy.

To estimate the prevalence of post-acute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (PASC) after infection with SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy and to characterize associated risk factors. In a multicenter cohort study (NIH RECOVER [Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery]-Pregnancy Cohort), individuals who were pregnant during their first SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled across the United States from December 2021 to September 2023, either within 30 days of their infection or at differential time points thereafter. The primary outcome was PASC , defined as score of 12 or higher based on symptoms and severity as previously published by the NIH RECOVER-Adult Cohort, at the first study visit at least 6 months after the participant's first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Risk factors for PASC were evaluated, including sociodemographic characteristics, clinical characteristics before SARS-CoV-2 infection (baseline comorbidities, trimester of infection, vaccination status), and acute infection severity (classified by need for oxygen therapy). Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to estimate associations between these characteristics and presence of PASC. Of the 1,502 participants, 61.1% had their first SARS-CoV-2 infection on or after December 1, 2021 (ie, during Omicron variant dominance); 51.4% were fully vaccinated before infection; and 182 (12.1%) were enrolled within 30 days of their acute infection. The prevalence of PASC was 9.3% (95% CI, 7.9-10.9%) measured at a median of 10.3 months (interquartile range 6.1-21.5) after first infection. The most common symptoms among individuals with PASC were postexertional malaise (77.7%), fatigue (76.3%), and gastrointestinal symptoms (61.2%). In a multivariable model, the proportion PASC positive with vs without history of obesity (14.9% vs 7.5%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.65, 95% CI, 1.12-2.43), depression or anxiety disorder (14.4% vs 6.1%, aOR 2.64, 95% CI, 1.79-3.88) before first infection, economic hardship (self-reported difficulty covering expenses) (12.5% vs 6.9%, aOR 1.57, 95% CI, 1.05-2.34), and treatment with oxygen during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection (18.1% vs 8.7%, aOR 1.86, 95% CI, 1.00-3.44) were associated with increased prevalence of PASC. The prevalence of PASC at a median time of 10.3 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy was 9.3% in the NIH RECOVER-Pregnancy Cohort. The predominant symptoms were postexertional malaise, fatigue, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Several socioeconomic and clinical characteristics were associated with PASC after infection during pregnancy. ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT05172024.

Metz TD ，Reeder HT ，Clifton RG ，Flaherman V ，Aragon LV ，Baucom LC ，Beamon CJ ，Braverman A ，Brown J ，Cao T ，Chang A ，Costantine MM ，Dionne JA ，Gibson KS ，Gross RS ，Guerreros E ，Habli M ，Hadlock J ，Han J ，Hess R ，Hillier L ，Hoffman MC ，Hoffman MK ，Hughes BL ，Jia X ，Kale M ，Katz SD ，Laleau V ，Mallett G ，Mehari A ，Mendez-Figueroa H ，McComsey GA ，Monteiro J ，Monzon V ，Okumura MJ ，Pant D ，Pacheco LD ，Palatnik A ，Palomares KTS ，Parry S ，Pettker CM ，Plunkett BA ，Poppas A ，Ramsey P ，Reddy UM ，Rouse DJ ，Saade GR ，Sandoval GJ ，Sciurba F ，Simhan HN ，Skupski DW ，Sowles A ，Thorp JM Jr ，Tita ATN ，Wiegand S ，Weiner SJ ，Yee LM ，Horwitz LI ，Foulkes AS ，Jacoby V ，NIH Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Consortium* ... -  《-》

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.

The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology. To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases. The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples). We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria. We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

Fox T ，Geppert J ，Dinnes J ，Scandrett K ，Bigio J ，Sulis G ，Hettiarachchi D ，Mathangasinghe Y ，Weeratunga P ，Wickramasinghe D ，Bergman H ，Buckley BS ，Probyn K ，Sguassero Y ，Davenport C ，Cunningham J ，Dittrich S ，Emperador D ，Hooft L ，Leeflang MM ，McInnes MD ，Spijker R ，Struyf T ，Van den Bruel A ，Verbakel JY ，Takwoingi Y ，Taylor-Phillips S ，Deeks JJ ，Cochrane COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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 saliva collection using spitting, drooling or salivating was on average -12 percentage points less sensitive (95% CI -16 to -8, based on 27,253 sample pairs, of which 4636 had SARS-CoV-2) compared to nasopharyngeal samples. We did not find any evidence of a difference in the sensitivity of saliva collected using spitting, drooling or salivating (sensitivity difference: range from -13 percentage points (spit) to -21 percentage points (salivate)). • Nasal samples (anterior and mid-turbinate collection combined) were, on average, 12 percentage points less sensitive compared to nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -17 to -7), based on 9291 sample pairs, of which 1485 had SARS-CoV-2. We did not find any evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples collected from the mid-turbinates (3942 sample pairs) or from the anterior nares (8272 sample pairs). • There was evidence that oropharyngeal samples were, on average, 17 percentage points less sensitive than nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -29 to -5), based on seven evaluations, 2522 sample pairs, of which 511 had SARS-CoV-2. A much smaller volume of evidence was available for combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples and oral samples. Age, symptom status and use of transport media do not appear to affect the sensitivity of saliva samples and nasal samples. When used with Ag-RDTs • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples (sensitivity, on average, 0 percentage points -0.2 to +0.2, based on 3688 sample pairs, of which 535 had SARS-CoV-2). When used with RT-PCR, there is no evidence for a difference in sensitivity of self-collected gargle or deep-throat saliva samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples collected by healthcare workers when used with RT-PCR. Use of these alternative, self-collected sample types has the potential to reduce cost and discomfort and improve the safety of sampling by reducing risk of transmission from aerosol spread which occurs as a result of coughing and gagging during the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal sample collection procedure. This may, in turn, improve access to and uptake of testing. Other types of saliva, nasal, oral and oropharyngeal samples are, on average, less sensitive compared to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples, and it is unlikely that sensitivities of this magnitude would be acceptable for confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR. When used with Ag-RDTs, there is no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The implications of this for self-testing are unclear as evaluations did not report whether nasal samples were self-collected or collected by healthcare workers. Further research is needed in asymptomatic individuals, children and in Ag-RDTs, and to investigate the effect of operator expertise on accuracy. Quality assessment of the evidence base underpinning these conclusions was restricted by poor reporting. There is a need for further high-quality studies, adhering to reporting standards for test accuracy studies.

Davenport C ，Arevalo-Rodriguez I ，Mateos-Haro M ，Berhane S ，Dinnes J ，Spijker R ，Buitrago-Garcia D ，Ciapponi A ，Takwoingi Y ，Deeks JJ ，Emperador D ，Leeflang MMG ，Van den Bruel A ，Cochrane COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》