Accuracy of serological tests for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Methods: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1 2020 to September 2 2022. We included studies that measured the sensitivity, specificity or both qualities of a COVID-19 serological test and a reference standard of a viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The risk of bias was assessed by using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). The primary outcomes included overall sensitivity and specificity, as stratified by the methods of serological testing [enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)] and immunoglobulin classes (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum-specific sensitivity and specificity within the subgroups, as defined by study or participant characteristics, which included the time from the onset of symptoms, testing via commercial kits or an in-house assay, antigen target, clinical setting, serological kit as the index test and the type of specimen for the RT-PCR reference test. Results: Eight thousand seven hundred and eighty-five references were identified and 169 studies included. Overall, we judged the risk of bias to be high in 47.9 % (81/169) of the studies, and a low risk of applicability concerns was found in 100% (169/169) of the studies. For each method of testing, the pooled sensitivity of the ELISAs ranged from 81 to 82%, with sensitivities ranging from 69 to 70% for the LFIAs and 77% to 79% for the CLIAs. Among the evaluated tests, IgG (80-81%)-based tests exhibited better sensitivities than IgM-based tests (66-68%). IgG/IgM-based CLIA had the highest sensitivity [87% (86-88%)]. All of the tests displayed high specificity (97-98%). Heterogeneity was observed in all of the analyses. The detection of nucleocapsid protein (77-80%) as the antigen target was found to offer higher sensitivity results than surface protein detection (66-68%). Sensitivity was higher in the in-house assays (78-79%) than in the commercial kits (47-48%). Conclusion: Among the evaluated tests, ELISA and CLIA tests performed better in terms of sensitivity than did the LFIA. IgG-based tests had higher sensitivity than IgM-based tests, and combined IgG/IgM test-based CLIA tests had the best overall diagnostic test accuracy. The type of sample, serological kit and timing of use of the specific tests were associated with the diagnostic accuracy. Due to the limitations of the serological tests, other techniques should be quickly approved to provide guidance for the correct diagnosis of COVID-19.

Dietary supplements and herbal medicine for COVID-19: A systematic review of randomized control trials.

BACKGROUND: The world is currently struggling with the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Dietary supplements (DSs) and herbal medicine provide a potentially convenient and accessible method for its recovery, but direct evidence is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of DSs and herbs in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in multiple electronic English and Chinese databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving DSs or herbal medicine interventions on patients with COVID-19 from November 2019 to February 2021 were included. Data was extracted, summarized and critically examined. RESULTS: Out of 9402 records identified in the initial search, twelve RCTs were included in this review. Risk of bias of these RCTs was deemed high. Most of the trials were of low methodologic quality. Nine studies showed herbal supplements were beneficial to the recovery of COVID-19 patients; zinc sulfate could shorten the duration of loss of smell but not total recovery from COVID-19. No severe adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Herbal supplements may help patients with COVID-19, zinc sulfate is likely to shorten the duration of olfactory dysfunction. DS therapy and herbal medicine appear to be safe and effective adjuvant therapies for patients with COVID-19. These results must be interpreted with caution due to the overall low quality of the included trials. More well-designed RCTs are needed in the future.

Comparative Effectiveness of Multiple Psychological Interventions for Psychological Crisis in People Affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

Objective: The objective of our current research is to compare the different psychological interventions and distinguish the most effective way to treat psychological crisis according to different clinical manifestations in people affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). No previous systematic review has provided a comprehensive overview by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of this current topic. Method: A systematic review and a Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, case-control studies, self-controlled case series (SCCS), cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies of all the available interventions for psychological crisis in people affected by COVID-19. We searched the electronic databases EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library, as well as the Chinese databases such as Sinomed, Chinese Biomedicine Literature (CBM), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), WanFang Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), from 2019 to April 30, 2020. The main outcomes were self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), self-rating depression scale (SDS), patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9), and symptom checklist (SCL-90). The study is registered with Inplasy, number 202050076. Result: Sixteen self-controlled case series (SCCS) comprising 1,147 participants compared five different psychological interventions with four different measurement scales were included in this study. For effectiveness, all the psychological therapies were significantly more effective than before intervention. Our results showed that supportive therapy (ST), which is adjusted to the COVID-19-related mental crisis, is the best treatment compared with behavioral therapy (BT), nursing-based psychological therapy (NBPT), traditional Chinese medicine therapy (TCMT), and COVID-19-related standard training (CRST) at reducing the anxiety-related symptoms assessed by SAS. When measured by SDS, BT was better than ST and NBPT treatment for reducing the depression symptoms. And ST was better than BT and ST+BT as assessed by PHQ-9. In the end, the last network meta-analysis indicated that NBPT was more effective than ST by the measurement of SCL-90. Conclusion: Our research suggested the potential effectiveness of psychological interventions for decreasing psychological crisis in people affected by COVID-19 and try to introduce the best effective treatment options for clinical practice according to the clinical manifestations of psychological problems, but further confirmation from high-quality RCTs is needed.

An evidence mapping and analysis of registered COVID-19 clinical trials in China.

BACKGROUND: This article aims to summarize the key characteristics of registered trials of 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19), in terms of their spatial and temporal distributions, types of design and interventions, and patient characteristics among others. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the registered COVID-19 trials has been performed on platforms including ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (CHiCTR), Australian Clinical Trials Registry, Britain's National Research Register (BNRR), Current Control Trials (CCT), and Glaxo Smith Kline Register. Trials registered at the first 8 weeks of the COVID-19 outbreak are included, without language restrictions. For each study, the registration information, study design, and administrator information are collected and summarized. RESULTS: A total of 220 registered trials were evaluated as of February 27, 2020. Hospital-initiated trials were the majority and account for 80% of the sample. Among the trials, pilot studies and phase 4 trials are more common and represent 35% and 19.1% of the sample, respectively. The median sample size of the registered trials is 100, with interquartile range 60-240. Further, 45.9% of the trials mentioned information on a data monitoring committee. 54.5% of the trials did not specify the disease severity among patients they intend to recruit. Four types of interventions are most common in the experimental groups across the registered studies: antiviral drugs, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), biological agents, and hormone drugs. Among them, the TCM and biological agents are frequently used in pilot study and correspond to a variety of primary endpoints. In contrast, trials with antiviral drugs have more targeted primary outcomes such as "COVID-19 nucleic acid test" and "28-day mortality." CONCLUSIONS: We provide an evidence mapping and analysis of registered COVID-19 clinical trials in China. In particular, it is critical for ongoing and future studies to refine their research hypothesis and better identify their intervention therapies and the corresponding primary outcomes. It is also imperative for multiple public health divisions and research institutions to work together for integrative clinical data capture and sharing, with a common objective of improving future studies that evaluate COVID-19 interventions.