Table 3.
Comparation of different detection methods.
| methods | equipment | read-out time (entire protocol) | cost (each sample) | Sensitivity/specificity | LOD | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT scan | CT machine | NA | NA | 97%, 25% | NA | Ai et al. (2020) |
| RT-qPCR | qPCR machine | 4 h | 15 $ | 71% (sensitivity) |
Won et al. (2020) Fang et al. (2020) |
|
| MNPs based RT-qPCR | qPCR machine | extraction ~30 min | NA | NA | 10-copy | Zhao et al. (2020b) |
| RT-digital PCR | PCR thermocycler | NA | 90%, 100% | NA | Zhao et al. (2020a) | |
| LAMP-based colorimetric method | PCR thermocycler or water bath | 20–30 min | 97.6% | NA | Yu et al. (2020b) | |
| 30 min | c | 100 copies | Park et al. (2020b) | |||
| LFICS-Au NPs colloid (IgM + IgG) | point-of-care strips | 15 min | 88.66%/90.63% | NA | Li et al. (2020b) | |
| ELISA (IgM + IgG) | fluorescent plate reader machine | ~2 h | 87.3%/100% | Xiang et al. (2020) | ||
| LFICS-Au NPs colloid (IgM + IgG) | point-of-care strips | 10 min | 82.4%/100% | |||
| LFICS-Au NPs colloid (IgM + IgG) | point-of-care strips | less than 15 min | 11.1%a/92.9% a 96.8% a |
Pan et al. (2020) | ||
| chemiluminescence (total Ab) | Fully automatic analyzer | NA | 86.9%/99.2% | Xia et al. (2020) | ||
| ELISA (total Ab) | fluorescent analyzer | ~2 h | 94.8%/100% | |||
| LFICS-Au NPs colloid (IgM) | point-of-care strips | less than 15 min | 96.2%/95.2% | |||
| LFICS- fluorescence (nucleocapsid protein) | point-of-care strips fluorescent analyzer |
within 10 min | 73.6% b | Diao et al. (2020) |
a
Means sensitivity was 11.1%, 92.9% and 96.8% at the early stage (1–7 days after onset), intermediate stage (8–14 days after onset), and late stage.
b
Means positive rat(more than 15 days), respectively. e. Ab: antibody. ELISA: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. LFICS: lateral flow immunochromatographic strip. LAMP: Loop -mediated isothermal amplification.
c
Means specificity to SARS-CoV-2 versus alphacoronavirus (hCoV-229E), betacoronavirus (hCoV-OC43) and MERS-CoV. NA: not available.