Diagnosis Methods for COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Abstract

At the end of 2019, the coronavirus appeared and spread extremely rapidly, causing millions of infections and deaths worldwide, and becoming a global pandemic. For this reason, it became urgent and essential to find adequate tests for an accurate and fast diagnosis of this disease. In the present study, a systematic review was performed in order to provide an overview of the COVID-19 diagnosis methods and tests already available, as well as their evolution in recent months. For this purpose, the Science Direct, PubMed, and Scopus databases were used to collect the data and three authors independently screened the references, extracted the main information, and assessed the quality of the included studies. After the analysis of the collected data, 34 studies reporting new methods to diagnose COVID-19 were selected. Although RT-PCR is the gold-standard method for COVID-19 diagnosis, it cannot fulfill all the requirements of this pandemic, being limited by the need for highly specialized equipment and personnel to perform the assays, as well as the long time to get the test results. To fulfill the limitations of this method, other alternatives, including biological and imaging analysis methods, also became commonly reported. The comparison of the different diagnosis tests allowed to understand the importance and potential of combining different techniques, not only to improve diagnosis but also for a further understanding of the virus, the disease, and their implications in humans.

Dataset from the comparative evaluation of the STANDARD M10 point-of-care analyzer versus the NeuMoDx assay for the molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2

“…Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of nasopharyngeal samples is the gold standard for the detection of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [1] . Nevertheless, the aforementioned assay has long turnaround times and requires trained personnel and specific facilities [2] . On the other hand, molecular point of care testing (POC) platforms provide alternatives that overcome the need for specialized personnel and improve significantly the time to result [3] .…”

Development and Characterization of Phage Display-Derived Monoclonal Antibodies to the S2 Domain of Spike Proteins of Wild-Type SARS-CoV-2 and Multiple Variants

“…SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care antigen tests based on sandwich immunoassay, a highly sensitive and specific viral antigen detection method, are also used as rapid mass screening tools to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. In contrast to NAATs, these tests are relatively inexpensive and less time-consuming, with fewer chances of specimen manipulation [ 15 ]. In addition, other point-of-care diagnostic approaches have also been developed for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 viral antigen [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ].…”

Lithographic SERS Aptasensor for Ultrasensitive Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Biological Fluids

“…As the quality of sample transportation, storage, and extraction of viral RNA can significantly affect the results of the test, all the procedures have to be carried out by experienced specialists [ 3 ]. What is more, performing RT-PCR requires designated areas in the laboratory, expensive reagents, and can take several hours [ 3 , 4 ]. Another conventional approach in diagnosing COVID-19 is to use serological assays, such as the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), the chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), and the lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) [ 4 , 5 ].…”

“…What is more, performing RT-PCR requires designated areas in the laboratory, expensive reagents, and can take several hours [ 3 , 4 ]. Another conventional approach in diagnosing COVID-19 is to use serological assays, such as the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), the chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), and the lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) [ 4 , 5 ].…”