Helen Mavriki
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Helen Mavriki has a total of 6 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Anastasia Tapari
Department of Computer Science and Biomedical Informatics, University of Thessaly, 35131 Lamia, Greece
1 shared publication - Georgia G. Braliou
Department of Computer Science and Biomedical Informatics, University of Thessaly, 35131 Lamia, Greece
1 shared publication - Georgios K. Nikolopoulos
Medical School, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
1 shared publication - Maria Papaefthimiou
Department of Computer Science and Biomedical Informatics, University of Thessaly, 35131 Lamia, Greece
1 shared publication - Panagiota I. Kontou
Department of Computer Science and Biomedical Informatics, University of Thessaly, 35131 Lamia, Greece
1 shared publication - Pantelis G. Bagos
Department of Computer Science and Biomedical Informatics, University of Thessaly, 35131 Lamia, Greece
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 4 June 2022
- Published by MDPI AG in Diagnostics
- Vol. 12 (6) , 1388
Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) initiated global health care challenges such as the necessity for new diagnostic tests. Diagnosis by real-time PCR remains the gold-standard method, yet economical and technical issues prohibit its use in points of care (POC) or for repetitive tests in populations. A lot of effort has been exerted in developing, using, and validating antigen-based tests (ATs). Since individual studies focus on few methodological aspects of ATs, a comparison of different tests is needed. Herein, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from articles in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. The bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities was used. Most of the AT types for SARS-CoV-2 were lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA), fluorescence immunoassays (FIA), and chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassays (CLEIA). We identified 235 articles containing data from 220,049 individuals. All ATs using nasopharyngeal samples show better performance than those with throat saliva (72% compared to 40%). Moreover, the rapid methods LFIA and FIA show about 10% lower sensitivity compared to the laboratory-based CLEIA method (72% compared to 82%). In addition, rapid ATs show higher sensitivity in symptomatic patients compared to asymptomatic patients, suggesting that viral load is a crucial parameter for ATs performed in POCs. Finally, all methods perform with very high specificity, reaching around 99%. LFIA tests, though with moderate sensitivity, appear as the most attractive method for use in POCs and for performing seroprevalence studies.
- 4 June 2022
- Published by MDPI AG in Diagnostics
- Vol. 12 (6) , 1388
Open AccessPerformance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) initiated global health care challenges such as the necessity for new diagnostic tests. Diagnosis by real-time PCR remains the gold-standard method, yet economical and technical issues prohibit its use in points of care (POC) or for repetitive tests in populations. A lot of effort has been exerted in developing, using, and validating antigen-based tests (ATs). Since individual studies focus on few methodological aspects of ATs, a comparison of different tests is needed. Herein, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from articles in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. The bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities was used. Most of the AT types for SARS-CoV-2 were lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA), fluorescence immunoassays (FIA), and chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassays (CLEIA). We identified 235 articles containing data from 220,049 individuals. All ATs using nasopharyngeal samples show better performance than those with throat saliva (72% compared to 40%). Moreover, the rapid methods LFIA and FIA show about 10% lower sensitivity compared to the laboratory-based CLEIA method (72% compared to 82%). In addition, rapid ATs show higher sensitivity in symptomatic patients compared to asymptomatic patients, suggesting that viral load is a crucial parameter for ATs performed in POCs. Finally, all methods perform with very high specificity, reaching around 99%. LFIA tests, though with moderate sensitivity, appear as the most attractive method for use in POCs and for performing seroprevalence studies.