Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.author
Arévalo Rodriguez, Ingrid  
dc.contributor.author
Seron, Pamela  
dc.contributor.author
Buitrago García, Diana  
dc.contributor.author
Ciapponi, Agustín  
dc.contributor.author
Muriel, Alfonso  
dc.contributor.author
Zambrano Achig, Paula  
dc.contributor.author
Del Campo, Rosa  
dc.contributor.author
Galán Montemayor, Juan Carlos  
dc.contributor.author
Simancas Racines, Daniel  
dc.contributor.author
Perez Molina, Jose A.  
dc.contributor.author
Khan, Khalid Saeed  
dc.contributor.author
Zamora, Javier  
dc.date.available
2021-07-05T21:31:32Z  
dc.date.issued
2021-01  
dc.identifier.citation
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  
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/135510  
dc.description.abstract
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.  
dc.format
application/pdf  
dc.language.iso
eng  
dc.publisher
BMJ Publishing Group  
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess  
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/  
dc.subject
DIAGNOSTIC MICROBIOLOGY  
dc.subject
EPIDEMIOLOGY  
dc.subject
PROTOCOLS & GUIDELINES  
dc.subject
COVID-19  
dc.subject.classification
Otras Ciencias de la Salud  
dc.subject.classification
Ciencias de la Salud  
dc.subject.classification
CIENCIAS MÉDICAS Y DE LA SALUD  
dc.title
Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: A scoping review of current guidance  
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article  
dc.type
info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo  
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion  
dc.date.updated
2021-06-29T13:25:11Z  
dc.identifier.eissn
2044-6055  
dc.journal.volume
11  
dc.journal.number
1  
dc.journal.pagination
1-10  
dc.journal.pais
Reino Unido  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Arévalo Rodriguez, Ingrid. Centro de Investigación en Red en Bioingeniería; España. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Seron, Pamela. Universidad de La Frontera; Chile  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Buitrago García, Diana. University of Bern; Suiza  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Muriel, Alfonso. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España. Centro de Investigación en Red en Bioingeniería; España  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Zambrano Achig, Paula. Universidad UTE; Ecuador  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Del Campo, Rosa. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Galán Montemayor, Juan Carlos. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España. Centro de Investigación en Red en Bioingeniería; España  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Simancas Racines, Daniel. Universidad UTE; Ecuador  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Perez Molina, Jose A.. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Khan, Khalid Saeed. Universidad de Granada; España  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Zamora, Javier. University of Birmingham; Reino Unido. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal; España  
dc.journal.title
British Medical Journal  
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043004  
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/1/e043004