Near-Infrared Spectroscopy as a Potential COVID-19 Early Detection Method: A Review and Future Perspective.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a worldwide health anxiety. The rapid dispersion of the infection globally results in unparalleled economic, social, and health impacts. The pathogen that causes COVID-19 is known as a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). A fast and low-cost diagnosis method for COVID-19 disease can play an important role in controlling its proliferation. Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is a quick, non-destructive, non-invasive, and inexpensive technique for profiling the chemical and physical structures of a wide range of samples. Furthermore, the NIRS has the advantage of incorporating the internet of things (IoT) application for the effective control and treatment of the disease. In recent years, a significant advancement in instrumentation and spectral analysis methods has resulted in a remarkable impact on the NIRS applications, especially in the medical discipline. To date, NIRS has been applied as a technique for detecting various viruses including zika (ZIKV), chikungunya (CHIKV), influenza, hepatitis C, dengue (DENV), and human immunodeficiency (HIV). This review aims to outline some historical and contemporary applications of NIRS in virology and its merit as a novel diagnostic technique for SARS-CoV-2.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Test Kits for Detecting SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 17,171 Suspected COVID-19 Patients.

Early diagnosis is still as crucial as the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. As RT-PCR sometimes is not feasible in developing nations or rural areas, health professionals may use a rapid antigen test (RAT) to lessen the load of diagnosis. However, the efficacy of RAT is yet to be investigated thoroughly. Hence, we tried to evaluate the overall performance of RAT in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Based on our PROSPERO registered protocol (CRD42021231432), we searched online databases (i.e., PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science) and analysed overall pooled specificity and sensitivity of RAT along with study quality, publication bias, heterogeneity and more. The overall pooled specificity and sensitivity of RAT were detected as 99.4% (95% CI: 99.1-99.8; I2 = 90%) and 68.4% (95% CI: 60.8-75.9; I2 = 98%), respectively. In subgroup analyses, nasopharyngeal specimens and symptomatic patient's samples were more sensitive in RAT, while cycle threshold (Ct) values were found to have an inverse relationship with sensitivity. In the European and American populations, RAT showed better performance. Although the sensitivity of RAT is yet to be improved, it could still be an alternative in places with poor laboratory set up. Nevertheless, the negative samples of RAT can be re-tested using RT-PCR to reduce false negative results.