Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: A scoping review of current guidance

Autores
Arévalo Rodriguez, Ingrid; Seron, Pamela; Buitrago García, Diana; Ciapponi, Agustín; Muriel, Alfonso; Zambrano Achig, Paula; Del Campo, Rosa; Galán Montemayor, Juan Carlos; Simancas Racines, Daniel; Perez Molina, Jose A.; Khan, Khalid Saeed; Zamora, Javier
Año de publicación
2021
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.
Fil: Arévalo Rodriguez, Ingrid. Centro de Investigación en Red en Bioingeniería; España. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España
Fil: Seron, Pamela. Universidad de La Frontera; Chile
Fil: Buitrago García, Diana. University of Bern; Suiza
Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Muriel, Alfonso. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España. Centro de Investigación en Red en Bioingeniería; España
Fil: Zambrano Achig, Paula. Universidad UTE; Ecuador
Fil: Del Campo, Rosa. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España
Fil: Galán Montemayor, Juan Carlos. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España. Centro de Investigación en Red en Bioingeniería; España
Fil: Simancas Racines, Daniel. Universidad UTE; Ecuador
Fil: Perez Molina, Jose A.. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España
Fil: Khan, Khalid Saeed. Universidad de Granada; España
Fil: Zamora, Javier. University of Birmingham; Reino Unido. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España
Materia
DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY
EPIDEMIOLOGY
PROTOCOLS & GUIDELINES
COVID-19
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/135510

id CONICETDig_82c7ba4c1f5ff005a69d3c7bf43ff7a8
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/135510
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: A scoping review of current guidanceArévalo Rodriguez, IngridSeron, PamelaBuitrago García, DianaCiapponi, AgustínMuriel, AlfonsoZambrano Achig, PaulaDel Campo, RosaGalán Montemayor, Juan CarlosSimancas Racines, DanielPerez Molina, Jose A.Khan, Khalid SaeedZamora, JavierDIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGYEPIDEMIOLOGYPROTOCOLS & GUIDELINESCOVID-19https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.Fil: Arévalo Rodriguez, Ingrid. Centro de Investigación en Red en Bioingeniería; España. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; EspañaFil: Seron, Pamela. Universidad de La Frontera; ChileFil: Buitrago García, Diana. University of Bern; SuizaFil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Muriel, Alfonso. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España. Centro de Investigación en Red en Bioingeniería; EspañaFil: Zambrano Achig, Paula. Universidad UTE; EcuadorFil: Del Campo, Rosa. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; EspañaFil: Galán Montemayor, Juan Carlos. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España. Centro de Investigación en Red en Bioingeniería; EspañaFil: Simancas Racines, Daniel. Universidad UTE; EcuadorFil: Perez Molina, Jose A.. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; EspañaFil: Khan, Khalid Saeed. Universidad de Granada; EspañaFil: Zamora, Javier. University of Birmingham; Reino Unido. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; EspañaBMJ Publishing Group2021-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/135510Arévalo Rodriguez, Ingrid; Seron, Pamela; Buitrago García, Diana; Ciapponi, Agustín; Muriel, Alfonso; et al.; Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: A scoping review of current guidance; BMJ Publishing Group; British Medical Journal; 11; 1; 1-2021; 1-102044-6055CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043004info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/1/e043004info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:14:35Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/135510instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:14:35.722CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: A scoping review of current guidance
title Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: A scoping review of current guidance
spellingShingle Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: A scoping review of current guidance
Arévalo Rodriguez, Ingrid
DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY
EPIDEMIOLOGY
PROTOCOLS & GUIDELINES
COVID-19
title_short Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: A scoping review of current guidance
title_full Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: A scoping review of current guidance
title_fullStr Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: A scoping review of current guidance
title_full_unstemmed Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: A scoping review of current guidance
title_sort Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: A scoping review of current guidance
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Arévalo Rodriguez, Ingrid
Seron, Pamela
Buitrago García, Diana
Ciapponi, Agustín
Muriel, Alfonso
Zambrano Achig, Paula
Del Campo, Rosa
Galán Montemayor, Juan Carlos
Simancas Racines, Daniel
Perez Molina, Jose A.
Khan, Khalid Saeed
Zamora, Javier
author Arévalo Rodriguez, Ingrid
author_facet Arévalo Rodriguez, Ingrid
Seron, Pamela
Buitrago García, Diana
Ciapponi, Agustín
Muriel, Alfonso
Zambrano Achig, Paula
Del Campo, Rosa
Galán Montemayor, Juan Carlos
Simancas Racines, Daniel
Perez Molina, Jose A.
Khan, Khalid Saeed
Zamora, Javier
author_role author
author2 Seron, Pamela
Buitrago García, Diana
Ciapponi, Agustín
Muriel, Alfonso
Zambrano Achig, Paula
Del Campo, Rosa
Galán Montemayor, Juan Carlos
Simancas Racines, Daniel
Perez Molina, Jose A.
Khan, Khalid Saeed
Zamora, Javier
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY
EPIDEMIOLOGY
PROTOCOLS & GUIDELINES
COVID-19
topic DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY
EPIDEMIOLOGY
PROTOCOLS & GUIDELINES
COVID-19
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.
Fil: Arévalo Rodriguez, Ingrid. Centro de Investigación en Red en Bioingeniería; España. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España
Fil: Seron, Pamela. Universidad de La Frontera; Chile
Fil: Buitrago García, Diana. University of Bern; Suiza
Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Muriel, Alfonso. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España. Centro de Investigación en Red en Bioingeniería; España
Fil: Zambrano Achig, Paula. Universidad UTE; Ecuador
Fil: Del Campo, Rosa. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España
Fil: Galán Montemayor, Juan Carlos. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España. Centro de Investigación en Red en Bioingeniería; España
Fil: Simancas Racines, Daniel. Universidad UTE; Ecuador
Fil: Perez Molina, Jose A.. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España
Fil: Khan, Khalid Saeed. Universidad de Granada; España
Fil: Zamora, Javier. University of Birmingham; Reino Unido. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España
description Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-01
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/135510
Arévalo Rodriguez, Ingrid; Seron, Pamela; Buitrago García, Diana; Ciapponi, Agustín; Muriel, Alfonso; et al.; Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: A scoping review of current guidance; BMJ Publishing Group; British Medical Journal; 11; 1; 1-2021; 1-10
2044-6055
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/135510
identifier_str_mv Arévalo Rodriguez, Ingrid; Seron, Pamela; Buitrago García, Diana; Ciapponi, Agustín; Muriel, Alfonso; et al.; Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: A scoping review of current guidance; BMJ Publishing Group; British Medical Journal; 11; 1; 1-2021; 1-10
2044-6055
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043004
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/1/e043004
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv BMJ Publishing Group
publisher.none.fl_str_mv BMJ Publishing Group
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844614075225473024
score 13.070432