
==== Front
BMC Infect Dis
BMC Infect Dis
BMC Infectious Diseases
1471-2334
BioMed Central London

39300343
9915
10.1186/s12879-024-09915-8
Systematic Review
The potential of circulating microRNAs as novel diagnostic biomarkers of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Belete Melaku Ashagrie melakuashagrie@gmail.com

1
Anley Denekew Tenaw 2
Tsega Sintayehu Simie 3
Moges Natnael 4
Anteneh Rahel Mulatie 2
Zemene Melkamu Aderajew 2
Gebeyehu Asaye Alamneh 2
Dessie Anteneh Mengist 2
Kebede Natnael 5
Chanie Ermias Sisay 4
Alemayehu Ermiyas 1
1 https://ror.org/01ktt8y73 grid.467130.7 0000 0004 0515 5212 Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Wollo University, Dessie, Ethiopia
2 https://ror.org/02bzfxf13 grid.510430.3 Department of Public Health, College of Health Science, Debre Tabor University, Debre Tabor, Ethiopia
3 https://ror.org/0595gz585 grid.59547.3a 0000 0000 8539 4635 Department of Medical Nursing, School of Nursing, College of Medicine and Health Science, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia
4 https://ror.org/02bzfxf13 grid.510430.3 Department of Pediatrics and Child Health Nursing, College of Health Sciences, Debre Tabor University, Debre Tabor, Ethiopia
5 https://ror.org/01ktt8y73 grid.467130.7 0000 0004 0515 5212 Department of Health Promotion, School of Public Health College of Medicine Health Sciences, Wollo University, Dessie, Ethiopia
19 9 2024
19 9 2024
2024
24 101111 6 2024
10 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unprecedented health threat globally, necessitating innovative and efficient diagnostic approaches for timely identification of infected individuals. Despite few emerging reports, the clinical utility of circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) in early and accurate diagnosis of COVID-19 is not well-evidenced. Hence, this meta-analysis aimed to explore the diagnostic potential of circulating miRNAs for COVID-19. The protocol for this study was officially recorded on PROSPERO under registration number CRD42023494959.

Methods

Electronic databases including Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and other sources were exhaustively searched to recover studies published until 16th January, 2024. Pooled specificity, sensitivity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic ratio (DOR), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) were computed from the metadata using Stata 14.0 software. Risk of bias appraisal of included articles was carried out using Review Manager (Rev-Man) 5.3 package through the modified QUADAS-2 tool. Subgroup, heterogeneity, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were undertaken. Publication bias and clinical applicability were also evaluated via Deeks’ funnel plot and Fagan nomogram (scattergram), respectively.

Result

A total of 43 studies from 13 eligible articles, involving 5175 participants (3281 COVID-19 patients and 1894 healthy controls), were analyzed. Our results depicted that miRNAs exhibit enhanced pooled specificity 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88–0.94), sensitivity 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91–0.96), DOR of 159 (95% CI: 87–288), and AUC values of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95–0.98) with high pooled PPV 96% (95% CI: 94–97%) and NPV 88% (95% CI: 86–90%) values. Additionally, highest diagnostic capacity was observed in studies involving larger sample size (greater than 100) and those involving the African population, demonstrating consistent diagnostic effectiveness across various specimen types. Notably, a total of 12 distinct miRNAs were identified as suitable for both exclusion and confirmation of COVID-19 cases, denoting their potential clinical applicability.

Conclusion

Our study depicted that miRNAs show significantly high diagnostic accuracy in differentiating COVID-19 patients from healthy counterparts, suggesting their possible use as viable biomarkers. Nonetheless, thorough and wide-ranging longitudinal researches are necessary to confirm the clinical applicability of miRNAs in diagnosing COVID-19.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-024-09915-8.

Keywords

Circulating miRNAs
Diagnostic biomarker
COVID-19
Systematic review
Meta-analysis
issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The virus known as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and leads to a variety of clinical presentations, ranging from mild respiratory symptoms to pneumonia, and in severe cases, multiple organ failure [1]. The involvement of multiple body systems in COVID-19 may be attributed to an imbalanced immune response, contributing to the disease’s progression [2]. As of February 2024, COVID-19 has affected over 774,469,939 individuals globally and resulted in over 7,026,465 deaths [3]. Treatment options for COVID-19 are not specific, and disease management relies on empirical methods [4].

Diagnosing COVID-19 involves detecting SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acids (RNA) from upper respiratory tract specimens using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [5, 6]. However, PCR has faced criticism due to its invasiveness and increased risk of cross-infection [7]. Moreover, it requires high purity samples, expensive equipment, specialist training, and long reaction times [8]. RT-PCR, though pivotal in detecting active COVID-19 infections [9], has several limitations, including variable sensitivity [10], resource-intensive processes, and delays in results [9]. Its invasive nature also makes it unsuitable for screening asymptomatic individuals [11]. Additionally, RT-PCR is prone to diagnostic challenges, such as difficulty distinguishing new infections from reinfections, issues with detecting viral mutations, and cases of false positives [12–14] and false negatives [15, 16], raising questions about its status as the “gold-standard” diagnostic method [17, 18]. Other molecular methods like clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and gene sequencing share similar drawbacks [19]. Chest computed tomography (CT) is also commonly used for diagnosis, but it cannot identify specific viruses and is unavailable in many settings [20, 21]. Additionally, serological diagnostic tests identify specific antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (IgG or IgM) but have low sensitivity early in the disease, high false-negative rates, and limited validation [22]. Consequently, finding effective diagnostic biomarkers and severity predictors is crucial for accurate and targeted therapy [23].

Numerous biomarkers, aside from cytokines, exhibit alterations in COVID-19 and are linked to diagnosis, disease outcomes, and prognosis [24]. Certain biomarkers offer straightforward predictions of disease severity, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, hospitalization, and mortality. However, other modalities, such as proteomic and metabolomic analyses, remain primarily investigational and pose challenges in translation to clinical application despite their prognostic capacity [25, 26]. Due to the scarcity of accessible data on biomarkers, there is still an imperative to discover novel non-invasive biomarkers capable of diagnosing COVID-19 and distinguishing between various disease stages. Achieving this necessitates a deeper comprehension of the interplay among the virus, host cells, viral pathogenesis, and cellular injury [27].

MicroRNAs (miRNAs), small non-coding RNAs comprising 17 to 22 nucleotides, regulate post-transcriptional gene expression by inhibiting translation [28]. These molecules play significant roles in various biological processes, including inflammation, apoptosis, cell proliferation, and the immune response to viral infections [29, 30]. Since their discovery, miRNAs have been proposed as biomarkers for disease severity, treatment response, and predictors of disease outcomes [31]. Their potential as disease indicators, especially for identifying viral infections, is attributed to their high sensitivity and specificity [32]. In COVID-19, dysregulated miRNAs have been linked to virus replication, cell proliferation, immune response, and inflammation [33, 34]. In the landscape of COVID-19 biomarkers, circulating miRNAs present distinct advantages and complementarity compared to other biomarkers. While several biomarkers, including viral RNA, antibodies, cytokines, and traditional clinical parameters like C-reactive protein (CRP) and D-dimer, have been extensively studied for COVID-19 diagnosis and prognosis, miRNAs offer unique characteristics that enhance their utility in clinical practice [35]. These unique advantages include early indication of diseases, stability, non-invasive sampling, and potential use in personalized medicine [36–38]. Moreover, miRNAs are best candidates for diagnostic applications mainly attributable to their regulatory roles in gene expression, post-transcriptional gene silencing, modulation of diverse biological processes, resistance to enzymatic degradation, and their stability in diverse body fluids such as serum, plasma, urine, and saliva [39–41]. Studies have also compared miRNA expression between COVID-19 patients and healthy individuals to identify potential diagnostic biomarkers [42–45]. Furthermore, analyzing miRNA expression in COVID-19 patients with varying severities aids in diagnosis and prediction [46]. However, the expression patterns of miRNAs in individuals with COVID-19 have yielded inconsistent findings. Given this variability in insights, conducting an all-inclusive analysis becomes essential to judge the suitability of such biomarkers as diagnostic aids for COVID-19. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to evaluate the diagnostic capacity of miRNAs in COVID-19 diagnosis.

Methods

Study design and protocol

This study is carried out and reported in compliance with the recommendations delineated in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) standard [47] as shown in Supplementary file 1. Furthermore, the protocol of this study was formally recorded in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under a documentation ID: CRD42023494959.

Article search and study selection

As delineated in Supplementary file 2, electronic bibliographic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Embase, were systematically searched for relevant articles until January 16, 2024. Additionally, a manual search was conducted on Google, and the bibliography items of identified articles were scrutinized to discover pertinent studies inadvertently overlooked in the initial search. The list of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) items and key words applied in the overall search included “microRNAs”, “miRNAs”, “miRNA”, “microRNA”, “miR”, “diagnos*”, “COVID-19”, “coronavirus”, “novel coronavirus 2019”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “2019-nCoV”, and “2019 nCoV”. Besides, Boolean operators (“AND” and “OR”) were strategically employed in the advanced search.

After the article search, retrieved articles were brought into Endnote 20.0 software (Clarivate analysis, Philadelphia) and underwent screening to identify eligible studies. After duplicate removal, two reviewers (MAB and EA) carried out an initial screening based on titles and abstracts, to identify eligible studies. Full texts of included studies were independently reviewed according to the pre-stated inclusion and exclusion standards. Any inconsistencies were assessed by a third researcher (DTA), and consensus resolved any differences.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

In this study, we took in observational studies (cohort, cross-sectional, case-control studies) involving human, exploring the value of miRNAs as diagnostic markers for distinguishing COVID-19 patients from healthy individuals. Eligible studies were necessarily stipulated to report essential data, including sample sizes for both groups (COVID-19 patients and healthy controls), specificity, and sensitivity, facilitating calculation of core diagnostic measurements (TP, TN, FP, FN). Exclusions encompassed various article types (reviews, editorials, conference proceedings, case reports, and author replies), non-peer-reviewed articles, and those missing critical inputs for computing TP, TN, FP, and FN.

Metadata extraction

Two reviewers (MAB and EA) meticulously extracted important information from included studies into an Excel worksheet, with discrepancies being unravelled through in-depth dialogues and the intruding of a third researcher (NM). In addition to computed values such as sensitivity, area under the curve (AUC) and specificity, the extracted data encompassed details including author, country, year of publication, type of miRNA or miRNA panel, miRNA regulation mode, reference controls, type of specimen, number of COVID-19 patient and healthy participants, cut-off points, and detection techniques.

Quality appraisal

The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool, encompassing criteria for selection of patients, efficiency of detection techniques, test flow, and adequacy of reference standard, was deployed to evaluate the risk of bias pertained by the included articles using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 software [48]. Accordingly, the appraisal outputs characterized the risk of bias and applicability concerns as unclear, low, or high.

Data analysis and synthesis

Extracted metadata were statistically analyzed using Stata software version 14.0 (Stata Corp LP, TX, USA). In the diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis, we employed specificity, sensitivity, negative likelihood ratios (NLR), positive likelihood ratios (PLR), and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR), along with their accompanying 95% confidence intervals to assess the diagnostic efficacy of miRNAs. Furthermore, pooled positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were computed to summarize the diagnostic accuracy of miRNAs across studies, enhancing the generalizability, precision, and clinical relevance of the findings. Quantitative evaluation of diagnostic accuracy involved determining the area under the curve (AUC) computed from summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC). Additionally, the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (HSROC) model was used to account for study variability and differing thresholds, offering a summary of test performance. The model produces a summary curve combining sensitivity and specificity for an overall assessment of diagnostic accuracy, and interpreted using key parameters including the β estimate, indicating trends in accuracy (a negative value suggests reduced performance), and the lambda estimate, which reflects variability in diagnostic odds ratios across studies [49]. Heterogeneity tests utilized the Q test and I2 statistics through application of a random-effects model, with an I2 value above 50% and a p-value less than 0.05 indicating statistically substantial heterogeneity among the eligible studies. Evaluation of heterogeneity resulted from the threshold effect employed the ROC plane and Spearman correlation coefficient, with bivariate boxplots and Galbraith Star charts estimating the level of heterogeneity. Additionally, subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis were performed to evaluate and understand sources of heterogeneity and ensure result stability. Potential publication bias was appraised through the use of Deeks’ funnel plot, in which a p-value > 0.1 suggests no publication bias. Likelihood ratio scattergram and Fagan’s nomogram were utilized to judge the clinical value of miRNAs as a diagnostic biomarker of COVID-19.

Results

Search results and selection of studies

The initial literature search process yielded a total of 848 records (PubMed = 301, Embase = 187, Scopus = 344, and other sources = 16), of which 294 duplicates were removed. Subsequently, the remaining 554 articles underwent evaluations of their title and abstract, and 503 were excluded. Finally, full text of 51 articles were assessed based on the eligibility criteria, and 13 studies [50–62] were identified and included in the quantitative analysis (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 PRISMA flow chart of article selection process for the systematic review and meta-analysis

Study characteristics

A total of 43 individual studies from the eligible 13 articles, involving 5175 participants (3281 COVID-19 patients and 1894 healthy controls), were thoroughly analyzed. All the included studies were published between 2021 and 2023. The location of studies spans three continents, with the majority of the studies conducted in Africa (6 studies from Egypt), followed by Asia (4 studies from Lebanon, Iran, China and Iraq), and Europe (3 studies from Italy, Spain and Romania). Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) was the commonly employed technique for assessing miRNA expression. Different specimen types were utilized, encompassing serum samples in seven studies, plasma samples in five studies, and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) in one study. Only 7 studies deployed U6 as internal reference, while 2 studies used cel-miR-39-3p. From all eligible studies, a total of 41 distinct miRNAs were analyzed, demonstrating that the majority of these miRNAs exhibited upregulation in COVID-19 patients. In-depth features of the eligible studies are tabulated in Table 1.

Table 1 Overall characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis

Authors	Year	Country	Specimen	Method	Reference	Participants	miRNA	Expression	Cut-off	Sen (%)	Spec (%)	AUC	
CP	HC	
Kazan et al.	2021	Lebanon	Plasma	qRT-PCR	MiR-502-5p	33	10	miR-19a-3p	Up	0.834	88.0	85.0	0.815	
Kazan et al.	2021	Lebanon	Plasma	qRT-PCR	MiR-502-5p	33	10	miR-19b-3p	Up	0.237	89.0	86.0	0.875	
Kazan et al.	2021	Lebanon	Plasma	qRT-PCR	MiR-502-5p	33	10	miR-92a-3p	Up	0.47	90.0	87.0	0.850	
Kazan et al.	2021	Lebanon	Plasma	qRT-PCR	MiR-502-5p	33	10	miR-19a-3p,

miR-19b-3p,

miR-92a-3p

	Up	0.52	92.0	89.0	0.917	
Agwa et al.	2021	Egypt	Serum	qRT-PCR	U6	100	100	IL11RA mRNA	Up	1.15	100.0	83.0	0.985	
Agwa et al.	2021	Egypt	Serum	qRT-PCR	U6	100	100	HSA-MIR-4257	Down	2.07	88.0	81.0	0.911	
Donyavi et al.	2021	Iran	PBMCs	qRT-PCR	SNORD47 RNA	18	15	miR-155-5p	Up	NR	83.3	100.0	0.900	
Donyavi et al.	2021	Iran	PBMCs	qRT-PCR	SNORD47 RNA	18	15	miR-let-7b-3p	Up	NR	83.3	93.3	0.930	
Donyavi et al.	2021	Iran	PBMCs	qRT-PCR	SNORD47 RNA	18	15	miR-29a-3p	Up	NR	83.3	100.0	1.00	
Donyavi et al.	2021	Iran	PBMCs	qRT-PCR	SNORD47 RNA	18	15	miR-146a-3p	Up	NR	100.0	93.3	0.980	
Li et al.	2022	China	Serum	qRT-PCR	U6	16	16	miR-125b-5p	Up	NR	100.0	93.7	1.00	
Li et al.	2022	China	Serum	qRT-PCR	U6	16	16	miR-155-5p	Up	NR	100.0	93.7	1.00	
Giannella et al.	2022	Italy	Serum	NGS	GRCh38	89	45	miR-320b	Up	509.3	94.4	95.6	0.970	
Giannella et al.	2022	Italy	Serum	NGS	GRCh38	89	45	miR-320c	Up	1154	89.9	95.6	0.970	
Giannella et al.	2022	Italy	Serum	NGS	GRCh38	89	45	miR-320d	Up	398.5	91.1	92.1	0.970	
Giannella et al.	2022	Italy	Serum	NGS	GRCh38	89	45	miR-483-5p	Up	1317	91.0	91.1	0.940	
Giannella et al.	2022	Italy	Serum	NGS	GRCh38	89	45	miR-320a-3p	Up	1164	80.9	88.9	0.910	
Giannella et al.	2022	Italy	Serum	NGS	GRCh38	89	45	miR-30d-5p	Down	6822	94.4	91.1	0.980	
Giannella et al.	2022	Italy	Serum	NGS	GRCh38	89	45	miR-25-3p	Down	5160	96.6	91.1	0.980	
Giannella et al.	2022	Italy	Serum	NGS	GRCh38	89	45	miR-93-5p	Down	5523	94.4	93.3	0.970	
Giannella et al.	2022	Italy	Serum	NGS	GRCh38	89	45	miR-16-5p	Down	1405	92.1	95.6	0.970	
Giannella et al.	2022	Italy	Serum	NGS	GRCh38	89	45	miR-101-3p	Down	3572	88.8	86.7	0.960	
Giannella et al.	2022	Italy	Serum	NGS	GRCh38	89	45	miR-185-5p	Down	1094	86.8	88.9	0.940	
Giannella et al.	2022	Italy	Serum	NGS	GRCh38	89	45	miR-425-5p	Down	2609	83.2	95.6	0.920	
Haroun et al.	2022	Egypt	Plasma	qRT-PCR	U6	150	50	miR-155	Up	1.81	90.0	100.0	0.986	
Dominguez et al.	2022	Spain	Serum	qRT-PCR	cel-miR-39-3p	17	16	hsa-miR-98-3p	Up	NR	72.7	63.6	0.826	
Dominguez et al.	2022	Spain	Serum	qRT-PCR	cel-miR-39-3p	17	16	hsa-miR-423-3p	Up	NR	75.0	73.3	0.787	
Dominguez et al.	2022	Spain	Serum	qRT-PCR	cel-miR-39-3p	17	16	hsa-miR-1246	Up	NR	82.4	87.5	0.875	
Dominguez et al.	2022	Spain	Serum	qRT-PCR	cel-miR-39-3p	17	16	hsa-miR-98-3p, hsa-miR-423-3p,

hsa-miR-1246

	Up	NR	63.6	69.1	0.663	
Shaker et al.	2023	Egypt	Serum	qRT-PCR	SNORD 68	98	30	miR-200c-3p	Up	5.59	94.9	99.0	NR	
Ayeldeen et al.	2023	Egypt	Serum	qRT-PCR	U6	200	80	miRNA-200	Up	6.97	100	89.2	NR	
Moatar et al.	2023	Romania	Plasma	qRT-PCR	cel-miR-39-3p	89	89	miR-195	Down	NR	85.2	96.5	0.922	
Hassan et al.	2023	Egypt	Plasma	qRT-PCR	U6	70	10	miRNA-618	Up	1	75.0	44.0	0.625	
Hassan et al.	2023	Egypt	Plasma	qRT-PCR	U6	70	10	miRNA-16–2-3p	Up	3.5	84.0	61.0	0.743	
Abed et al.	2023	Iraq	Plasma	qRT-PCR	U6	145	145	miRNA-20a	Down	14.55	100.0	95.0	1.00	
Abed et al.	2023	Iraq	Plasma	qRT-PCR	U6	145	145	miRNA-320	Up	24.05	100.0	91.0	1.00	
Soltane et al.	2023	Egypt	Serum	qRT-PCR	U6	106	57	MiR-21	Up	NR	93.3	85.7	0.836	
Soltane et al.	2023	Egypt	Serum	qRT-PCR	U6	106	57	MiR-155	Up	NR	86.6	75.0	0.929	
Soltane et al.	2023	Egypt	Serum	qRT-PCR	U6	106	57	MiR-146a	Up	NR	97.1	100.0	0.775	
Soltane et al.	2023	Egypt	Serum	qRT-PCR	U6	106	57	MiR-146b	Up	NR	100.0	97.3	0.757	
Soltane et al.	2023	Egypt	Serum	qRT-PCR	U6	106	57	MiR-let-7	Up	NR	100.0	96.9	0.972	
Soltane et al.	2023	Egypt	Serum	qRT-PCR	U6	106	57	MiR-223	Up	NR	100.0	87.5	0.984	
Soltane et al.	2023	Egypt	Serum	qRT-PCR	U6	106	57	MiR-342	Up	NR	91.0	100.0	0.863	
Note CP: COVID-19 patients; HC: healthy control; NR: not reported; NGS: next generation sequence; PBMCs: peripheral blood mononuclear cells; qRT-PCR: quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction; Sen: sensitivity; Spec: specificity; AUC: area under curve

Quality appraisal of eligible studies

Based on the QUADAS-2 tool quality assessment findings, overall validated and enhanced methodological standards were pertained by the eligible studies, demonstrating low risk of bias and applicability concerns in the majority of the quality appraisal criteria (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 Quality appraisal (risk of bias and applicability concern assessment) of eligible studies using QUADAS-2

Diagnostic accuracy of miRNAs as biomarkers of COVID-19 diagnosis

According to our meta-analysis utilizing the random effect model, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of miRNAs in distinguishing between COVID-19 patients and healthy controls were found to be 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91–0.96), 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88–0.94), 10.96 (95% CI: 8.02–14.98), 0.07 (95% CI: 0.05–0.10), and 159 (95% CI: 87–288), respectively (Fig. 3, Supplementary file 3 A). The pooled PPV of the miRNA based diagnostic test across the included studies was 96% (95% CI: 94–97%) whereas the pooled NPV was found to be 88% (95% CI: 86–90%). This indicates that out of all patients who tested positive, 96% were correctly diagnosed with the condition, while only 4% were false positives (Supplementary file 3B) Additionally, SROC curve analysis depicted an impressive AUC value of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95–0.98), signifying a high level of diagnostic accuracy of miRNAs as potential diagnostic biomarkers for COVID-19 (Fig. 4A). These SROC curve analysis findings were further confirmed through the application of the Hierarchical SROC (HSROC) tool, depicting a β estimate of -0.33 (95% CI: -0.81 − 0.14, P = 0.176) and lambda estimate of 3.19 (95% CI: 2.72–3.67) (Fig. 4B).

Fig. 3 Forest plot showing overall specificity and sensitivity of miRNAs in the diagnosis of COVID-19

Fig. 4 SROC curve analysis of miRNAs for diagnosing COVID-19; (A) the SROC curve with the 95% confidence contour and 95% prediction contour and (B) the HSROC model with the 95% confidence region and 95% confidence prediction region

Heterogeneity and threshold effect

The significant contribution of both threshold and non-threshold effects to the observed heterogeneity in diagnostic tests is noteworthy. Our study revealed substantial heterogeneity in the combined sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR with values (I2 = 81.81%, P < 0.001), (I2 = 71.22%, P < 0.001), (I2 = 70.58%, P < 0.001), (I2 = 78.36%, P < 0.001), and (I2 = 100.00%, P < 0.001), respectively. An I2 value of > 50% indicated non-threshold effect heterogeneity among the eligible studies. In both the Galbraith star chart and the bivariate box plot, 13 out of 43 studies and 12 out of 43 studies, respectively, situated out of the lower and upper limits of the 95% CI (see Supplementary file 4 A and 4B).

Furthermore, an evaluation was carried out to assess the impact of the threshold effect on observed heterogeneity, employing the ROC plane along with Spearman correlation coefficient. The existence of a robust negative correlation (p < 0.05) and a distinct shoulder-arm appearance on the ROC plane serves as an indication of the threshold effect. In our study, the Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.361 with a p-value of 0.067 (p > 0.05), and an atypical shoulder-arm structure was noticed in the ROC plane, signifying an absence of heterogeneity attributed to the threshold effect (Supplementary file 4 C).

Subgroup analyses and meta-regression

In the subgroup analysis, the pooled diagnostic accuracy of miRNA was slightly higher in studies involving the African population (AUC 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97 − 0.99) in contrast to those conducted in European (AUC 0.95, 95% CI: 0.93 − 0.97) and Asian populations (AUC 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91 − 0.95). Furthermore, when examining various specimen types, it was found that miRNAs showed comparable diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing COVID-19, with an AUC of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96 − 0.99) in studies utilizing PBMCs samples and an AUC of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95 − 0.98) in studies using serum and plasma samples. Similarly, in the subgroup analysis based on regulation mode, analogous diagnostic accuracy with AUC of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95 − 0.98) was observed for both upregulated and downregulated miRNAs.

In terms of internal reference control, it was noted that studies utilizing U6 as the internal reference control showcased enhanced diagnostic ability for miRNAs in differentiating COVID-19 patients from healthy counterparts (AUC 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97 − 0.99), in comparison to those using other reference controls. Furthermore, miRNAs showcased peak diagnostic accuracy when the sample size of the included studies was above 100, with an AUC of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96 − 0.99) contrasting with studies involving participant numbers ≤ 100 (AUC 0.92, 95% CI: 0.89 − 0.94) (Table 2).

Table 2 Subgroup analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of miRNA in COVID-19

Subgroup	No of studies	Sen (95% CI)	Spe (95% CI)	PLR (95% CI)	NLR (95% CI)	DOR (95% CI)	AUC (95% CI)	
Country	
Europe	17	0.88 (0.84 − 0.91)	0.91 (0.87 − 0.93)	9.4 (6.5 − 13.7)	0.13 (0.10 − 0.18)	72 (39 − 136)	0.95 (0.93 − 0.97)	
Africa	14	0.97 (0.92 − 0.99)	0.93 (0.83 − 0.97)	13.6 (5.4 − 34.5)	0.03 (0.01 − 0.09)	457 (87 − 2398)	0.99 (0.97 − 0.99)	
Asia	12	0.96 (0.89 − 0.99)	0.93 (0.89 − 0.96)	14.2 (8.6 − 23.5)	0.04 (0.01 − 0.12)	359 (101 − 1279)	0.94 (0.91 − 0.95)	
Specimen	
Serum	29	0.94 (0.91 − 0.96)	0.91 (0.88 − 0.94)	10.6 (7.6 − 14.7)	0.06 (0.04 − 0.10)	166 (82 − 335)	0.97 (0.95 − 0.98)	
Plasma	10	0.93 (0.84 − 0.97)	0.90 (0.78 − 0.96)	9.2 (4.0 − 21.0)	0.08 (0.03 − 0.18)	119 (28 − 504)	0.97 (0.95 − 0.98)	
PMBCs	4	0.88 (0.77 − 0.94)	0.97 (0.87 − 0.99)	27.1 (6.1 − 120.6)	0.13 (0.07 − 0.25)	213 (38 − 1197)	0.98 (0.96 − 0.99)	
Regulation mode	
Upregulated	33	0.94 (0.90 − 0.97)	0.91 (0.87 − 0.94)	10.9 (7.2 − 16.5)	0.06 (0.04 − 0.11)	170 (77 − 372)	0.97 (0.95 − 0.98)	
Downregulated	10	0.93 (0.88 − 0.96)	0.92 (0.88 − 0.95)	11.7 (7.8 − 17.6)	0.08 (0.05 − 0.14)	145 (67 − 314)	0.97 (0.95 − 0.98)	
Reference	
U6	17	0.99 (0.95 − 1.00)	0.92 (0.85 − 0.96)	11.9 (6.4 − 22.2)	0.01 (0.00 − 0.06)	1041 (156 − 6967)	0.99 (0.97 − 0.99)	
GRCh38	12	0.91 (0.88 − 0.93)	0.92 (0.89 − 0.94)	11.4 (8.5 − 15.4)	0.10 (0.08 − 0.13)	114 (72 − 181)	0.95 (0.93 − 0.96)	
cel-miR-39-3p	5	0.77 (0.66 − 0.85)	0.83 (0.65 − 0.93)	4.6 (1.9 − 11.0)	0.28 (0.17 − 0.46)	16 (4 − 62)	0.84 (0.80 − 0.87)	
SNORD47 RNA	4	0.88 (0.77 − 0.94)	0.97 (0.87 − 0.99)	27.1 (6.1 − 120.6)	0.13 (0.07 − 0.25)	213 (38 − 1197)	0.98 (0.96 − 0.99)	
MiR-502-5p	4	0.89 (0.83 − 0.94)	0.87 (0.73 − 0.95)	7.2 (3.1 − 16.3)	0.12 (0.07 − 0.20)	59 (20 − 175)	0.95 (0.92 − 0.96)	
Sample size	
> 100	27	0.96 (0.93 − 0.98)	0.93 (0.90 − 0.95)	13.8 (10.0 − 19.2)	0.04 (0.03 − 0.08)	310 (156 − 617)	0.98 (0.96 − 0.99)	
≤ 100	16	0.87 (0.81 − 0.90)	0.87 (0.77 − 0.92)	6.4 (3.6 − 11.5)	0.15 (0.11 − 0.23)	41 (17 − 100)	0.92 (0.89 − 0.94)	
Cut-off value	
Given	25	0.93 (0.90 − 0.96)	0.91 (0.87 − 0.93)	10.0 (7.2 − 13.8)	0.07 (0.05 − 0.11)	139 (74 − 260)	0.97 (0.95 − 0.98)	
Not given	18	0.94 (0.88 − 0.97)	0.93 (0.87 − 0.96)	13.4 (7.1 − 25.2)	0.06 (0.03 − 0.14)	213 (63 − 716)	0.98 (0.96 − 0.99)	
Note AUC: area under curve; DOR: diagnostic odds ratio; NLR: negative likelihood ratio; PLR: positive likelihood ratio; Sen: sensitivity; Spec: specificity

As illustrated in Fig. 5, the findings of meta-regression analysis showed that covariates including specimen type, country, expression mode, sample size, and cut-off point were delineated as significant contributors to the heterogeneity in both specificity and sensitivity.

Fig. 5 Meta-regression analysis to assess sources of heterogeneity in sensitivity and specificity of miRNAs

Applicability of miRNAs in clinical use for diagnosing COVID-19

According to the Fagan’s nomogram, our finding indicated that a positive diagnostic test result would elevate the post-test probability of an individual having COVID-19 to approximately 73%, given a pre-test probability of 20%. This means that if a patient is tested positive for COVID-19 using miRNA biomarkers, the likelihood that they truly have the disease increases to 73%. Conversely, a negative test result would lower the post-test probability to around 2%, suggesting that a negative miRNA test effectively rules out the disease with high certainty. This implies that miRNAs exhibit potential as indicator for the diagnosis of COVID-19 (see Fig. 6A).

Fig. 6 Assessment of the clinical applicability of miRNAs in diagnosing COVID-19, including (A) Fagan’s nomogram revealing post-test probabilities under a pre-test probability set at 20% and (B) Likelihood ratio scattergram depicting the likelihood ratios as indicators of clinical applicability

In Fig. 6B, we present a scattergram to illustrate the diagnostic performance of miRNAs across various studies. The scattergram plots the PLR against the NLR for individual studies. Studies positioned in the left upper quadrant (PLR > 10 and NLR < 0.1) indicate strong diagnostic markers for both confirming and excluding COVID-19. Specifically, five studies from Giannella et al., two from Abed et al., two from Soltane et al., and individual studies from Donyavi et al., Li et al., and Shaker et al. positioned in the left upper quadrant (PLR > 10 and NLR < 0.1), signifying the robustness of the biomarkers in both confirming and ruling out COVID-19. This result is further supported by a summary (overall) effect situated in the left upper quadrant signifying the overall applicability of miRNAs for both exclusion and confirmation of COVID-19. This summary effect consolidates the findings from all included studies, providing a comprehensive overview of the diagnostic efficacy of miRNAs. Notably, our analysis identified a total of 12 distinct miRNAs, including miR-146a-3p, miR-155-5p, miR-320b, miR-30d-5p, miR-25-3p, miR-93-5p, miR-16-5p, miR-200c-3p, miRNA-20a, miRNA-320, MiR-146a, MiR-146b as being particularly effective for both confirming and excluding COVID-19. These miRNAs exhibit consistent diagnostic performance across various studies and specimen types, denoting their potential clinical applicability in diagnosing COVID-19 (Fig. 6B).

Sensitivity analysis

The trustworthiness and robustness of this meta-analysis model was relatively affirmed through bivariate normality and goodness-of-fit analysis, as showcased in Fig. 7a and b. Furthermore, the outlier detection segment of the sensitivity analysis pinpointed three studies as potential sources of heterogeneity (Fig. 7d). However, even after excluding these outlier studies, no substantial alterations were detected in the pooled sensitivity (0.94 vs. 0.93), specificity (0.91 vs. 0.92), PLR (10.98 vs. 11.4), NLR (0.07 vs. 0.08), and AUC (0.97 vs. 0.97), indicating an overall low sensitivity among the included studies.

Fig. 7 Sensitivity analysis of included studies evaluating the reliability and validity of the meta-analysis results and outlier detection

Publication bias

The Deek’s funnel plot revealed apparently asymmetrical distribution of studies along both sides of the regression line, with a p-value of < 0.001 illustrating the presence of significant publication bias in the metadata (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8 Deek’s funnel plot asymmetry test for evaluating publication bias in the included studies

Discussion

This study, comprising primary data of 41 distinct miRNAs and two miRNA panels across 13 studies, revealed that miRNAs demonstrated strong diagnostic accuracy and proved their possible use as biomarkers in COVID-19 diagnosis, with a higher combined sensitivity 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91–0.96) and specificity 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88–0.94), along with PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC values of 10.96 (95% CI: 8.02–14.98), 0.07 (95% CI: 0.05–0.10), 159.0 (95% CI: 87–288), and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95–0.98), respectively. Such illustrated high levels of sensitivity and specificity underscore the accuracy of miRNAs to efficiently distinguishing COVID-19 patients from healthy individuals. This finding is also supported by systematic review reports illustrating the possible use of miRNAs as potential biomarkers of COVID-19 [31] and other infectious diseases including tuberculosis, sepsis, and viral hepatitis [37]. Similar findings depicting the potential of miRNAs as diagnostic biomarkers were also reported beyond COVID-19, including other pathologies such as, cervical cancer [63], hepatocellular carcinoma [64], and oncogenic viral infections such as Human T-lymphotropic virus, Human papilloma virus, Merkel cell polyoma virus, Human herpes virus-8, and Epstein–Barr virus-associated cancers [65, 66].

The integration of microRNA-based diagnostics with existing tests such as RT-PCR, imaging, and immunological assays used to monitor COVID-19 offers complementary diagnostic information beyond pathogen detection, including early detection of asymptomatic cases, differentiating between new infection and reinfections, enhances multimodal monitoring strategies through holistic surveillance of viral dynamics, host immune responses and treatment responses, and enables point-of-care applications [67]. By leveraging the synergies between microRNA profiling and conventional diagnostics, healthcare providers can enhance the accuracy, timeliness, and comprehensiveness of COVID-19 surveillance and management through facilitating early detection of disease recurrence, emergence of vaccine escape variants, and complications associated with long COVID, ultimately improving patient outcomes [68].

Despite such tremendous significance and compelling features to be used as efficient biomarkers, the implication of miRNAs is not adequately explored for COVID-19 diagnosis [31, 69]. Apart from few systematic review reports [31, 67, 68, 70–72], till date, there are no all-inclusive quantitative studies providing thorough statistical summary of the diagnostic potential of miRNAs in COVID-19. Hence, this study is the first meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic potential of miRNAs in diagnosing COVID-19.

The high PLR and low NLR further affirm the diagnostic prowess of miRNAs [73, 74]. Notably, the PLR value of 10.96 in our study shows approximately 11 times higher probability of detecting positive miRNA results in COVID-19 patients in contract with healthy controls. On the other hand, the NLR value of 0.07 infers there is only a 7% probability of developing COVID-19 among those tested negative. Additionally, a DOR > 1 and AUC approaching 1 are indicative of best distinguishing capability and overall efficacy of a test [75–77], and evidently, we obtained a DOR of 159 and AUC value of 0.97 which affirm the extraordinary ability of miRNA markers to effectively differentiate COVID-19 patients from healthy individuals. These findings collectively prove the potential of miRNAs as reliable and accurate diagnostic markers for COVID-19, offering a promising avenue for the development of sensitive and specific diagnostic tools in the ongoing battle against the pandemic.

According to our finding, the application of the HSROC model revealed a β estimate of -0.33 (95% CI: -0.81 − 0.14), indicating a trend in the reduction of diagnostic accuracy. However, the corresponding P value of 0.176 suggests that this reduction is not statistically significant, emphasizing the need for cautious interpretation. The lambda estimate, a crucial parameter in the HSROC model, was determined to be 3.19 (95% CI: 2.72–3.67), reflecting the variability in the diagnostic odds ratio among the studies, with a higher lambda value indicative of increased heterogeneity [78]. The observed lambda estimate of 3.19 underscores a notable degree of variability in the diagnostic performance of the microRNAs across the included studies.

In the subgroup analysis, a slightly elevated diagnostic accuracy was observed in studies involving the African population (AUC 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97 − 0.99) in contrast with those conducted in European (AUC 0.95, 95% CI 0.93 − 0.97) and Asian population (AUC 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91 − 0.95) highlighting the potential influence of population-specific factors on miRNA efficacy as COVID-19 diagnostic biomarkers. These observed differences underscore the need to consider demographic and geographical variations in future investigations and the development of diagnostic strategies, enhancing the accuracy and applicability of miRNA-based diagnostics for diverse populations affected by the pandemic.

Our subgroup analysis results also illustrate no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy when considering different specimen types, including serum, plasma and PMBCs with a consistent AUC of 0.97, 0.97, and 0.98, respectively. This consistent diagnostic performance across diverse specimen types indicates the robustness of miRNA-based diagnostics for COVID-19, offering flexibility in specimen selection for clinical applicability without compromising accuracy. Additionally, this study depicted heightened diagnostic capacity with AUC value of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96–0.99) in studies comprising > 100 sample size compared to studies with ≤ 100 study participants (AUC: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.89–0.94). Such variation might be attributable to sample size induced bias and statistical power [79].

According to the Fagan’s nomogram analysis [80, 81] depicting an overall PLR of 0.73 and NLR of 0.02, the positive test results for miRNAs are indicative of about 73% likelihood of acquiring COVID-19. On the other hand, the likelihood declines to about 2% in cases where samples yielded negative results for miRNAs. Such findings proved the promising diagnostic ability of miRNAs in differentiating individuals with SARS-CoV-2 from healthy counterparts, with strong evidence of possible use for exclusion and confirmation of COVID-19. This diagnostic ability of miRNAs is paramount and hopeful in overcoming the rising concerns of the currently available diagnostic methods for the frequently mutated SARS-CoV-2 pandemic to enable early and accurate detection.

This meta-analysis is the first of its kind to comprehensively investigate the potential of miRNAs in effectively diagnosing COVID-19. Despite it is a strength to analyze a more comprehensive list of miRNAs from included studies pertaining to high methodological quality, this study faces some limitations. Initially, the metadata were quite limited attributable to the diverse cutoff values of the miRNAs, potentially causing significant heterogeneity among the eligible studies. Secondly, the scarcity of similar miRNAs hindered the subgroup analysis, and we were not able to identify a single miRNA or a panel of miRNA biomarker with best diagnostic performance. Thirdly, the study may be influenced by reduced statistical power due to the small number of sample sizes in majority of the eligible articles. Fourthly, the absence of similarity in the use of internal references resulted in varying outcomes in miRNA quantitative analysis, and could impact the reliability and reproducibility of miRNA expression profiles, potentially confounding the interpretation of diagnostic performance metrics. Fifthly, variations in the techniques used for quantifications of miRNAs, such as qRT-PCR and NGS, may lead to potential inconsistencies in the reported miRNA levels, impact the comparability of miRNA measurements, and could contribute to variability in the reported diagnostic accuracy of circulating miRNAs for COVID-19. Sixthly, the HSROC model may be less sensitive to subtle differences in diagnostic accuracy between individual studies, and the model assumes homogeneity in study populations, which may not fully capture the complexity of diverse clinical settings. Finally, the limited number of available studies restricted our ability to gather sufficient data on the role of miRNAs as indicators of disease severity or predictors of COVID-19. Although the abovementioned limitations may have influenced the results, we believe that it will lay a solid groundwork for future research endeavors. As such, it is essential to approach and infer our findings with caution. We strongly urge upcoming scholars to corroborate and substantiate our conclusions by conducting wide-ranging studies pertaining consistent research methodologies and larger sample sizes. Future studies should also consider alternative models or combine HSROC with other methods, such as bivariate models, to provide a more nuanced analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

In conclusion, this study underscores the high diagnostic accuracy of miRNAs in distinguishing COVID-19 patients from healthy counterparts, suggesting their promise as valuable biomarkers for detecting SARS-CoV-2. Remarkably, miRNAs among studies with substantial sample sizes and those focusing on the African population exhibit heightened diagnostic capacity, indicating consistent diagnostic effectiveness across different specimen types. Nonetheless, thorough and wide-ranging researches with superb methodological qualities involving both individual miRNA and miRNA panel assessments need to be conducted to confirm the clinical applicability of miRNAs in diagnosing COVID-19.

Policymakers could consider supporting the integration of miRNA-based diagnostics into public health strategies, particularly for early detection and monitoring of viral outbreaks. In clinical practice, miRNAs could complement existing diagnostic methods like RT-PCR, offering a non-invasive, rapid, and accurate alternative, particularly in resource-limited settings. Future research should aim to standardize miRNA detection techniques and validate these findings across diverse populations and settings. Additionally, the development of point-of-care miRNA diagnostic tools could revolutionize pandemic preparedness and response.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Supplementary Material 3

Supplementary Material 4

Abbreviations

AUC area under the curve

DOR diagnostic odds ratio

ELISA enzyme linked immunosorbent assay

FN false negative

FP false positive

HSROC Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic

IgG Immunoglobulin G

IgM Immunoglobulin M

LFIA lateral flow immunoassay

miRNAs microRNAs

NGS next generation sequencing

NLR negative likelihood ratio

PBMCs peripheral blood mononuclear cells

PLR positive likelihood ratio

PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis

PROSPERO Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews

qRT-PCR quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction

QUADAS-2 Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2

RT-PCR real-time polymerase chain reaction

SARS-CoV-2 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2

SROCs summary receiver operating characteristic curves

TN true negative

TP true positive

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author contributions

MAB conceived and designed the study, carried out article searches, selected studies, extracted metadata, and assessed the quality of the included articles. MAB also performed statistical analyses and wrote the original manuscript. DTA, SST, NM, RMA, MAZ, AAG, AMD, NK, ESC and EA contributed in article searches, study selection and extraction, and provided support in analysis, reviewing, and editing of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final draft of the manuscript before submission for publication.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the study.

Data availability

Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Robba C Battaglini D Pelosi P Rocco PR Multiple organ dysfunction in SARS-CoV-2: MODS-CoV-2 Expert Rev Respir Med 2020 14 9 865 8 10.1080/17476348.2020.1778470 32567404
Robba C, Battaglini D, Pelosi P, Rocco PR. Multiple organ dysfunction in SARS-CoV-2: MODS-CoV-2. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2020;14(9):865–8.32567404
2. Huang C Wang Y Li X Ren L Zhao J Hu Y Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China Lancet 2020 395 10223 497 506 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5 31986264
Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu Y, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020;395(10223):497–506.31986264
3. World Health Organization. Coronavirus (COVID–19) Dashboard. [Internet]. 2024 [cited 16 January 2024]. https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/deaths?n=c
4. Phadke M Saunik S COVID-19 treatment by repurposing drugs until the vaccine is in sight Drug Dev Res 2020 81 5 541 3 10.1002/ddr.21666 32227357
Phadke M, Saunik S. COVID-19 treatment by repurposing drugs until the vaccine is in sight. Drug Dev Res. 2020;81(5):541–3.32227357
5. Torretta S Zuccotti G Cristofaro V Ettori J Solimeno L Battilocchi L Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR using different sample sources: review of the literature Ear Nose Throat J 2021 100 2suppl S131 8 10.1177/0145561320953231
Torretta S, Zuccotti G, Cristofaro V, Ettori J, Solimeno L, Battilocchi L, et al. Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR using different sample sources: review of the literature. Ear Nose Throat J. 2021;100(2suppl):S131–8.
6. Hanson KE, Caliendo AM, Arias CA, Englund JA, Hayden MK, Lee MJ et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines on the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): serologic testing. Clin Infect Dis. 2020:ciaa1343.
7. Adeoye J Thomson P The double-edged sword’–an hypothesis for Covid-19-induced salivary biomarkers Med Hypotheses 2020 143 110124 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110124 32721813
Adeoye J, Thomson P. The double-edged sword’–an hypothesis for Covid-19-induced salivary biomarkers. Med Hypotheses. 2020;143:110124.32721813
8. Corman VM Landt O Kaiser M Molenkamp R Meijer A Chu DK Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR Eurosurveillance 2020 25 3 2000045 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045 31992387
Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, Molenkamp R, Meijer A, Chu DK, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Eurosurveillance. 2020;25(3):2000045.31992387
9. Dhar BC Diagnostic assay and technology advancement for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections causing the COVID-19 pandemic Anal Bioanal Chem 2022 414 9 2903 34 10.1007/s00216-022-03918-7 35211785
Dhar BC. Diagnostic assay and technology advancement for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections causing the COVID-19 pandemic. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2022;414(9):2903–34.35211785
10. Dramé M Teguo MT Proye E Hequet F Hentzien M Kanagaratnam L Should RT-PCR be considered a gold standard in the diagnosis of Covid‐19? J Med Virol 2020 92 11 2312 10.1002/jmv.25996 32383182
Dramé M, Teguo MT, Proye E, Hequet F, Hentzien M, Kanagaratnam L, et al. Should RT-PCR be considered a gold standard in the diagnosis of Covid‐19? J Med Virol. 2020;92(11):2312.32383182
11. Shafie MH Antony Dass M Ahmad Shaberi HS Zafarina Z Screening and confirmation tests for SARS-CoV-2: benefits and drawbacks Beni-Suef Univ J Basic Appl Sci 2023 12 1 1 14 10.1186/s43088-023-00342-3
Shafie MH, Antony Dass M, Ahmad Shaberi HS, Zafarina Z. Screening and confirmation tests for SARS-CoV-2: benefits and drawbacks. Beni-Suef Univ J Basic Appl Sci. 2023;12(1):1–14.
12. Roy S Physicians’ dilemma of false-positive RT-PCR for COVID-19: a case report SN Compr Clin Med 2021 3 1 255 8 10.1007/s42399-020-00655-9 33426468
Roy S. Physicians’ dilemma of false-positive RT-PCR for COVID-19: a case report. SN Compr Clin Med. 2021;3(1):255–8.33426468
13. Surkova E Nikolayevskyy V Drobniewski F False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs Lancet Respiratory Med 2020 8 12 1167 8 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30453-7
Surkova E, Nikolayevskyy V, Drobniewski F. False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs. Lancet Respiratory Med. 2020;8(12):1167–8.
14. Braunstein GD Schwartz L Hymel P Fielding J False positive results with SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests and how to evaluate a RT-PCR-positive test for the possibility of a false positive result J Occup Environ Med 2021 63 3 e159 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002138 33405498
Braunstein GD, Schwartz L, Hymel P, Fielding J. False positive results with SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests and how to evaluate a RT-PCR-positive test for the possibility of a false positive result. J Occup Environ Med. 2021;63(3):e159.33405498
15. Arevalo-Rodriguez I Buitrago-Garcia D Simancas-Racines D Zambrano-Achig P Del Campo R Ciapponi A False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: a systematic review PLoS ONE 2020 15 12 e0242958 10.1371/journal.pone.0242958 33301459
Arevalo-Rodriguez I, Buitrago-Garcia D, Simancas-Racines D, Zambrano-Achig P, Del Campo R, Ciapponi A, et al. False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(12):e0242958.33301459
16. Grewal S Syed Gurcoo M Sudhan Sharma S Comparative analysis of specificity and sensitivity between Cobas 6800 system and SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR to detect COVID-19 infection in clinical samples Arch Microbiol 2022 204 8 502 10.1007/s00203-022-03118-y 35852637
Grewal S, Syed Gurcoo M, Sudhan Sharma S. Comparative analysis of specificity and sensitivity between Cobas 6800 system and SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR to detect COVID-19 infection in clinical samples. Arch Microbiol. 2022;204(8):502.35852637
17. Wikramaratna PS Paton RS Ghafari M Lourenço J Estimating the false-negative test probability of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR Eurosurveillance 2020 25 50 2000568 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.50.2000568 33334398
Wikramaratna PS, Paton RS, Ghafari M, Lourenço J. Estimating the false-negative test probability of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Eurosurveillance. 2020;25(50):2000568.33334398
18. Kortela E Kirjavainen V Ahava MJ Jokiranta ST But A Lindahl A Real-life clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test in symptomatic patients PLoS ONE 2021 16 5 e0251661 10.1371/journal.pone.0251661 34019562
Kortela E, Kirjavainen V, Ahava MJ, Jokiranta ST, But A, Lindahl A, et al. Real-life clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test in symptomatic patients. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(5):e0251661.34019562
19. Rong G, Zheng Y, Chen Y, Zhang Y, Zhu P, Sawan M. COVID-19 diagnostic methods and detection techniques. Encyclopedia Sens Biosens. 2023:17.
20. Caruso D Zerunian M Polici M Pucciarelli F Polidori T Rucci C Chest CT features of COVID-19 in Rome, Italy Radiology 2020 296 2 E79 85 10.1148/radiol.2020201237 32243238
Caruso D, Zerunian M, Polici M, Pucciarelli F, Polidori T, Rucci C, et al. Chest CT features of COVID-19 in Rome, Italy. Radiology. 2020;296(2):E79–85.32243238
21. Cui F Zhou HS Diagnostic methods and potential portable biosensors for coronavirus disease 2019 Biosens Bioelectron 2020 165 112349 10.1016/j.bios.2020.112349 32510340
Cui F, Zhou HS. Diagnostic methods and potential portable biosensors for coronavirus disease 2019. Biosens Bioelectron. 2020;165:112349.32510340
22. Castro R Luz PM Wakimoto MD Veloso VG Grinsztejn B Perazzo H COVID-19: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of commercial assays registered in Brazil Brazilian J Infect Dis 2020 24 180 7 10.1016/j.bjid.2020.04.003
Castro R, Luz PM, Wakimoto MD, Veloso VG, Grinsztejn B, Perazzo H. COVID-19: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of commercial assays registered in Brazil. Brazilian J Infect Dis. 2020;24:180–7.
23. Caruso FP Scala G Cerulo L Ceccarelli M A review of COVID-19 biomarkers and drug targets: resources and tools Brief Bioinform 2021 22 2 701 13 10.1093/bib/bbaa328 33279954
Caruso FP, Scala G, Cerulo L, Ceccarelli M. A review of COVID-19 biomarkers and drug targets: resources and tools. Brief Bioinform. 2021;22(2):701–13.33279954
24. Al-Farabi MJ Nugraha RA Marsudi BA Azmi Y Biomarkers of endothelial dysfunction and outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis Microvasc Res 2021 138 104224 10.1016/j.mvr.2021.104224 34273359
Al-Farabi MJ, Nugraha RA, Marsudi BA, Azmi Y. Biomarkers of endothelial dysfunction and outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Microvasc Res. 2021;138:104224.34273359
25. Taleb S Yassine HM Benslimane FM Smatti MK Schuchardt S Albagha O Predictive biomarkers of intensive care unit and mechanical ventilation duration in critically-ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients Front Med 2021 8 733657 10.3389/fmed.2021.733657
Taleb S, Yassine HM, Benslimane FM, Smatti MK, Schuchardt S, Albagha O, et al. Predictive biomarkers of intensive care unit and mechanical ventilation duration in critically-ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Front Med. 2021;8:733657.
26. Yang J Chen C Chen W Huang L Fu Z Ye K Proteomics and metabonomics analyses of Covid-19 complications in patients with pulmonary fibrosis Sci Rep 2021 11 1 14601 10.1038/s41598-021-94256-8 34272434
Yang J, Chen C, Chen W, Huang L, Fu Z, Ye K, et al. Proteomics and metabonomics analyses of Covid-19 complications in patients with pulmonary fibrosis. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):14601.34272434
27. Xu Z Shi L Wang Y Zhang J Huang L Zhang C Pathological findings of COVID-19 associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome Lancet Respiratory Med 2020 8 4 420 2 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30076-X
Xu Z, Shi L, Wang Y, Zhang J, Huang L, Zhang C, et al. Pathological findings of COVID-19 associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Lancet Respiratory Med. 2020;8(4):420–2.
28. Wilczynska A Bushell M The complexity of miRNA-mediated repression Cell Death Differ 2015 22 1 22 33 10.1038/cdd.2014.112 25190144
Wilczynska A, Bushell M. The complexity of miRNA-mediated repression. Cell Death Differ. 2015;22(1):22–33.25190144
29. Winkle M El-Daly SM Fabbri M Calin GA Noncoding RNA therapeutics—challenges and potential solutions Nat Rev Drug Discovery 2021 20 8 629 51 10.1038/s41573-021-00219-z 34145432
Winkle M, El-Daly SM, Fabbri M, Calin GA. Noncoding RNA therapeutics—challenges and potential solutions. Nat Rev Drug Discovery. 2021;20(8):629–51.34145432
30. Mehta A Baltimore D MicroRNAs as regulatory elements in immune system logic Nat Rev Immunol 2016 16 5 279 94 10.1038/nri.2016.40 27121651
Mehta A, Baltimore D. MicroRNAs as regulatory elements in immune system logic. Nat Rev Immunol. 2016;16(5):279–94.27121651
31. Reyes-Long S Cortés-Altamirano JL Bandala C Avendaño-Ortiz K Bonilla-Jaime H Bueno-Nava A Role of the MicroRNAs in the pathogenic mechanism of painful symptoms in long COVID: systematic review Int J Mol Sci 2023 24 4 3574 10.3390/ijms24043574 36834984
Reyes-Long S, Cortés-Altamirano JL, Bandala C, Avendaño-Ortiz K, Bonilla-Jaime H, Bueno-Nava A, et al. Role of the MicroRNAs in the pathogenic mechanism of painful symptoms in long COVID: systematic review. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(4):3574.36834984
32. Ryu G, Shin H-W. SARS-CoV-2 infection of airway epithelial cells. Immune Netw. 2021;21(1).
33. Liu Z Wang J Ge Y Xu Y Guo M Mi K SARS-CoV-2 encoded microRNAs are involved in the process of virus infection and host immune response J Biomedical Res 2021 35 3 216 10.7555/JBR.35.20200154
Liu Z, Wang J, Ge Y, Xu Y, Guo M, Mi K, et al. SARS-CoV-2 encoded microRNAs are involved in the process of virus infection and host immune response. J Biomedical Res. 2021;35(3):216.
34. Houshmandfar S, Saeedi-Boroujeni A, Rashno M, Khodadadi A, Mahmoudian-Sani M-R. miRNA-223 as a regulator of inflammation and NLRP3 inflammasome, the main fragments in the puzzle of immunopathogenesis of different inflammatory diseases and COVID-19. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s archives of pharmacology. 2021:1–9.
35. Mittal R Chourasia N Bharti VK Singh S Sarkar P Agrawal A Blood-based biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis, and severity prediction of COVID-19: opportunities and challenges J Family Med Prim Care 2022 11 8 4330 41 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2283_21 36352911
Mittal R, Chourasia N, Bharti VK, Singh S, Sarkar P, Agrawal A, et al. Blood-based biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis, and severity prediction of COVID-19: opportunities and challenges. J Family Med Prim Care. 2022;11(8):4330–41.36352911
36. Leon Tribolet EK Cowled C Bean AGD Stewart CR Dearnley M Ryan J Farr. MicroRNA biomarkers for infectious diseases: from Basic Research to Biosensing Front Microbiol 2020 11 1197 1 15 32082274
Leon Tribolet EK, Cowled C, Bean AGD, Stewart CR, Dearnley M, Ryan J. Farr. MicroRNA biomarkers for infectious diseases: from Basic Research to Biosensing. Front Microbiol. 2020;11(1197):1–15.32082274
37. Correia CN Nalpas NC McLoughlin KE Browne JA Gordon SV MacHugh DE Circulating microRNAs as potential biomarkers of infectious disease Front Immunol 2017 8 118 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00118 28261201
Correia CN, Nalpas NC, McLoughlin KE, Browne JA, Gordon SV, MacHugh DE, et al. Circulating microRNAs as potential biomarkers of infectious disease. Front Immunol. 2017;8:118.28261201
38. Chavda VP Valu DD Parikh PK Tiwari N Chhipa AS Shukla S Conventional and novel diagnostic tools for the diagnosis of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants Vaccines 2023 11 2 374 10.3390/vaccines11020374 36851252
Chavda VP, Valu DD, Parikh PK, Tiwari N, Chhipa AS, Shukla S, et al. Conventional and novel diagnostic tools for the diagnosis of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. Vaccines. 2023;11(2):374.36851252
39. Srijyothi L, Ponne S, Prathama T, Ashok C, Baluchamy S. Roles of non-coding RNAs in transcriptional regulation. Volume 55. Transcriptional and Post-transcriptional regulation; 2018.
40. Wang Y-M Trinh MP Zheng Y Guo K Jimenez LA Zhong W Analysis of circulating non-coding RNAs in a non-invasive and cost-effective manner TRAC Trends Anal Chem 2019 117 242 62 10.1016/j.trac.2019.07.001
Wang Y-M, Trinh MP, Zheng Y, Guo K, Jimenez LA, Zhong W. Analysis of circulating non-coding RNAs in a non-invasive and cost-effective manner. TRAC Trends Anal Chem. 2019;117:242–62.
41. Niderla-Bielińska J Jankowska-Steifer E Włodarski P Non-coding RNAs and human diseases: current status and future perspectives Int J Mol Sci 2023 24 14 11679 10.3390/ijms241411679 37511438
Niderla-Bielińska J, Jankowska-Steifer E, Włodarski P. Non-coding RNAs and human diseases: current status and future perspectives. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(14):11679.37511438
42. Khatami A Taghizadieh M Sadri Nahand J Karimzadeh M Kiani SJ Khanaliha K Evaluation of MicroRNA expression pattern (miR-28, miR-181a, miR-34a, and miR-31) in patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICU and Diabetic COVID-19 patients Intervirology 2023 66 1 63 76 10.1159/000529985 36882006
Khatami A, Taghizadieh M, Sadri Nahand J, Karimzadeh M, Kiani SJ, Khanaliha K, et al. Evaluation of MicroRNA expression pattern (miR-28, miR-181a, miR-34a, and miR-31) in patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICU and Diabetic COVID-19 patients. Intervirology. 2023;66(1):63–76.36882006
43. Fernandez-Pato A Virseda-Berdices A Resino S Ryan P Martinez-Gonzalez O Perez-Garcia F Plasma miRNA profile at COVID-19 onset predicts severity status and mortality Emerg Microbes Infect 2022 11 1 676 88 10.1080/22221751.2022.2038021 35130828
Fernandez-Pato A, Virseda-Berdices A, Resino S, Ryan P, Martinez-Gonzalez O, Perez-Garcia F, et al. Plasma miRNA profile at COVID-19 onset predicts severity status and mortality. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2022;11(1):676–88.35130828
44. Mohamed HA Abdelkafy AE Khairy RMM Abdelraheim SR Kamel BA Marey H MicroRNAs and cytokines as potential predictive biomarkers for COVID-19 disease progression Sci Rep 2023 13 1 3531 10.1038/s41598-023-30474-6 36864077
Mohamed HA, Abdelkafy AE, Khairy RMM, Abdelraheim SR, Kamel BA, Marey H. MicroRNAs and cytokines as potential predictive biomarkers for COVID-19 disease progression. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):3531.36864077
45. de Gonzalo-Calvo D Benitez ID Pinilla L Carratala A Moncusi-Moix A Gort-Paniello C Circulating microRNA profiles predict the severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients Transl Res 2021 236 147 59 10.1016/j.trsl.2021.05.004 34048985
de Gonzalo-Calvo D, Benitez ID, Pinilla L, Carratala A, Moncusi-Moix A, Gort-Paniello C, et al. Circulating microRNA profiles predict the severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. Transl Res. 2021;236:147–59.34048985
46. Keikha R Hashemi-Shahri SM Jebali A The miRNA neuroinflammatory biomarkers in COVID-19 patients with different severity of illness Neurologia 2023 38 6 e41 51 10.1016/j.nrl.2021.06.005 37344097
Keikha R, Hashemi-Shahri SM, Jebali A. The miRNA neuroinflammatory biomarkers in COVID-19 patients with different severity of illness. Neurologia. 2023;38(6):e41–51.37344097
47. Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM Boutron I Hoffmann TC Mulrow CD The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews Int J Surg 2021 88 105906 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906 33789826
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906.33789826
48. Yang B Mallett S Takwoingi Y Davenport CF Hyde CJ Whiting PF QUADAS-C: a tool for assessing risk of bias in comparative diagnostic accuracy studies Ann Intern Med 2021 174 11 1592 9 10.7326/M21-2234 34698503
Yang B, Mallett S, Takwoingi Y, Davenport CF, Hyde CJ, Whiting PF, et al. QUADAS-C: a tool for assessing risk of bias in comparative diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(11):1592–9.34698503
49. Lee J Kim KW Choi SH Huh J Park SH Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers-part II. Statistical methods of meta-analysis Korean J Radiol 2015 16 6 1188 96 10.3348/kjr.2015.16.6.1188 26576107
Lee J, Kim KW, Choi SH, Huh J, Park SH. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers-part II. Statistical methods of meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol. 2015;16(6):1188–96.26576107
50. Fayyad-Kazan M Makki R Skafi N El Homsi M Hamade A El Majzoub R Circulating miRNAs: potential diagnostic role for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Infect Genet Evol 2021 94 105020 10.1016/j.meegid.2021.105020 34343725
Fayyad-Kazan M, Makki R, Skafi N, El Homsi M, Hamade A, El Majzoub R, et al. Circulating miRNAs: potential diagnostic role for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Infect Genet Evol. 2021;94:105020.34343725
51. Agwa SHA, Elghazaly H, Meteini MSE, Shawky SM, Ali M, Abd Elsamee AM et al. In Silico Identification and Clinical Validation of a Novel Long non-coding RNA/mRNA/miRNA Molecular Network for potential biomarkers for discriminating SARS CoV-2 infection severity. Cells. 2021;10(11).
52. Donyavi T Bokharaei-Salim F Baghi HB Khanaliha K Alaei Janat-Makan M Karimi B Acute and post-acute phase of COVID-19: analyzing expression patterns of miRNA-29a-3p, 146a-3p, 155-5p, and let-7b-3p in PBMC Int Immunopharmacol 2021 97 107641 10.1016/j.intimp.2021.107641 33895478
Donyavi T, Bokharaei-Salim F, Baghi HB, Khanaliha K, Alaei Janat-Makan M, Karimi B, et al. Acute and post-acute phase of COVID-19: analyzing expression patterns of miRNA-29a-3p, 146a-3p, 155-5p, and let-7b-3p in PBMC. Int Immunopharmacol. 2021;97:107641.33895478
53. Li X Wang Y Zhou Q Pan J Xu J Potential predictive value of miR-125b-5p, mir-155-5p and their target genes in the Course of COVID-19 Infect Drug Resist 2022 15 4079 91 10.2147/IDR.S372420 35937783
Li X, Wang Y, Zhou Q, Pan J, Xu J. Potential predictive value of miR-125b-5p, mir-155-5p and their target genes in the Course of COVID-19. Infect Drug Resist. 2022;15:4079–91.35937783
54. Giannella A Riccetti S Sinigaglia A Piubelli C Razzaboni E Di Battista P Circulating microRNA signatures associated with disease severity and outcome in COVID-19 patients Front Immunol 2022 13 968991 10.3389/fimmu.2022.968991 36032130
Giannella A, Riccetti S, Sinigaglia A, Piubelli C, Razzaboni E, Di Battista P, et al. Circulating microRNA signatures associated with disease severity and outcome in COVID-19 patients. Front Immunol. 2022;13:968991.36032130
55. Haroun RA Osman WH Amin RE Hassan AK Abo-Shanab WS Eessa AM Circulating plasma miR-155 is a potential biomarker for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection Pathology 2022 54 1 104 10 10.1016/j.pathol.2021.09.006 34838331
Haroun RA, Osman WH, Amin RE, Hassan AK, Abo-Shanab WS, Eessa AM. Circulating plasma miR-155 is a potential biomarker for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Pathology. 2022;54(1):104–10.34838331
56. Calderon-Dominguez M Trejo-Gutierrez E Gonzalez-Rovira A Beltran-Camacho L Rojas-Torres M Eslava-Alcon S Serum microRNAs targeting ACE2 and RAB14 genes distinguish asymptomatic from critical COVID-19 patients Mol Ther Nucleic Acids 2022 29 76 87 10.1016/j.omtn.2022.06.006 35721225
Calderon-Dominguez M, Trejo-Gutierrez E, Gonzalez-Rovira A, Beltran-Camacho L, Rojas-Torres M, Eslava-Alcon S, et al. Serum microRNAs targeting ACE2 and RAB14 genes distinguish asymptomatic from critical COVID-19 patients. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2022;29:76–87.35721225
57. Shaker O El Amir M Elfatah YA Elwi HM Expression patterns of lncRNA MALAT-1 in SARS-COV-2 infection and its potential effect on disease severity via miR-200c-3p and SIRT1 Biochem Biophys Rep 2023 36 101562 37965063
Shaker O, El Amir M, Elfatah YA, Elwi HM. Expression patterns of lncRNA MALAT-1 in SARS-COV-2 infection and its potential effect on disease severity via miR-200c-3p and SIRT1. Biochem Biophys Rep. 2023;36:101562.37965063
58. Ayeldeen G Shaker OG Amer E Zaafan MA Herzalla MR Keshk MA The impact of lncRNA-GAS5/miRNA-200/ACE2 Molecular Pathway on the severity of COVID-19 Curr Med Chem 2024 31 9 1142 51 10.2174/0929867330666230515144133 37190816
Ayeldeen G, Shaker OG, Amer E, Zaafan MA, Herzalla MR, Keshk MA, et al. The impact of lncRNA-GAS5/miRNA-200/ACE2 Molecular Pathway on the severity of COVID-19. Curr Med Chem. 2024;31(9):1142–51.37190816
59. Moatar AI Chis AR Romanescu M Ciordas PD Nitusca D Marian C Plasma mir-195-5p predicts the severity of Covid-19 in hospitalized patients Sci Rep 2023 13 1 13806 10.1038/s41598-023-40754-w 37612439
Moatar AI, Chis AR, Romanescu M, Ciordas PD, Nitusca D, Marian C, et al. Plasma mir-195-5p predicts the severity of Covid-19 in hospitalized patients. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):13806.37612439
60. Hassan NE Moselhy WA Eldomany EB Kholef EFM Evaluation of miRNA-16-2-3P, miRNA-618 levels and their diagnostic and prognostic value in the regulation of immune response during SARS Cov-2 infection Immunogenetics 2023 75 4 403 10 10.1007/s00251-023-01308-6 37222789
Hassan NE, Moselhy WA, Eldomany EB, Kholef EFM. Evaluation of miRNA-16-2-3P, miRNA-618 levels and their diagnostic and prognostic value in the regulation of immune response during SARS Cov-2 infection. Immunogenetics. 2023;75(4):403–10.37222789
61. Abed RM, Abdulmalek HW, Yaaqoob LA. The role of miRNA20a and miRNA320 in Iraqi patients with COVID-19: a case–control study. Egypt J Med Hum Genet. 2023;24(1).
62. Soltane R, Almulla N, Alasiri A, Elashmawy NF, Qumsani AT, Alshehrei FM et al. A comparative analysis of MicroRNA expression in mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19: insights from urine, serum, and Nasopharyngeal Samples. Biomolecules. 2023;13(12).
63. González-Ramírez MI Cardona YT Agudelo MC López C Florez-Acosta JJ Agudelo-Gamboa S miRNAs signature as potential biomarkers for cervical precancerous lesions in human papillomavirus positive women Sci Rep 2023 13 1 9822 10.1038/s41598-023-36421-9 37330541
González-Ramírez MI, Cardona YT, Agudelo MC, López C, Florez-Acosta JJ, Agudelo-Gamboa S, et al. miRNAs signature as potential biomarkers for cervical precancerous lesions in human papillomavirus positive women. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):9822.37330541
64. Wu X Wan R Ren L Yang Y Ding Y Wang W Circulating microRNA panel as a diagnostic marker for hepatocellular carcinoma Turkish J Gastroenterol 2022 33 10 844 10.5152/tjg.2022.21183
Wu X, Wan R, Ren L, Yang Y, Ding Y, Wang W. Circulating microRNA panel as a diagnostic marker for hepatocellular carcinoma. Turkish J Gastroenterol. 2022;33(10):844.
65. Notarte KI Senanayake S Macaranas I Albano PM Mundo L Fennell E MicroRNA and other non-coding RNAs in Epstein–Barr virus-associated cancers Cancers 2021 13 15 3909 10.3390/cancers13153909 34359809
Notarte KI, Senanayake S, Macaranas I, Albano PM, Mundo L, Fennell E, et al. MicroRNA and other non-coding RNAs in Epstein–Barr virus-associated cancers. Cancers. 2021;13(15):3909.34359809
66. Hasham K Ahmed N Zeshan B Circulating microRNAs in oncogenic viral infections: potential diagnostic biomarkers SN Appl Sci 2020 2 3 442 10.1007/s42452-020-2251-0
Hasham K, Ahmed N, Zeshan B. Circulating microRNAs in oncogenic viral infections: potential diagnostic biomarkers. SN Appl Sci. 2020;2(3):442.
67. Jankovic M Nikolic D Novakovic I Petrovic B Lackovic M Santric-Milicevic M miRNAs as a potential biomarker in the COVID-19 infection and complications Course, Severity, and Outcome Diagnostics 2023 13 6 1091 10.3390/diagnostics13061091 36980399
Jankovic M, Nikolic D, Novakovic I, Petrovic B, Lackovic M, Santric-Milicevic M. miRNAs as a potential biomarker in the COVID-19 infection and complications Course, Severity, and Outcome. Diagnostics. 2023;13(6):1091.36980399
68. Visacri MB Nicoletti AS Pincinato EC Loren P Saavedra N Saavedra K Role of miRNAs as biomarkers of COVID-19: a scoping review of the status and future directions for research in this field Biomark Med 2021 15 18 1785 95 10.2217/bmm-2021-0348 34784802
Visacri MB, Nicoletti AS, Pincinato EC, Loren P, Saavedra N, Saavedra K, et al. Role of miRNAs as biomarkers of COVID-19: a scoping review of the status and future directions for research in this field. Biomark Med. 2021;15(18):1785–95.34784802
69. Moszyńska A Gebert M Collawn JF Bartoszewski R SNPs in microRNA target sites and their potential role in human disease Open Biology 2017 7 4 170019 10.1098/rsob.170019 28381629
Moszyńska A, Gebert M, Collawn JF, Bartoszewski R. SNPs in microRNA target sites and their potential role in human disease. Open Biology. 2017;7(4):170019.28381629
70. Fani M Zandi M Ebrahimi S Soltani S Abbasi S The role of miRNAs in COVID-19 disease Future Virol 2021 16 4 301 6 10.2217/fvl-2020-0389
Fani M, Zandi M, Ebrahimi S, Soltani S, Abbasi S. The role of miRNAs in COVID-19 disease. Future Virol. 2021;16(4):301–6.
71. Ergün S Sankaranarayanan R Petrović N Clinically informative microRNAs for SARS-CoV-2 infection Epigenomics 2023 15 13 705 16 10.2217/epi-2023-0179 37661862
Ergün S, Sankaranarayanan R, Petrović N. Clinically informative microRNAs for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Epigenomics. 2023;15(13):705–16.37661862
72. Ahmad W, Gull B, Baby J, Panicker NG, Khader TA, Akhlaq S et al. Differentially-regulated miRNAs in COVID‐19: a systematic review. Rev Med Virol. 2023:e2449.
73. Schlattmann P Tutorial: statistical methods for the meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies Clin Chem Lab Med (CCLM) 2023 61 5 777 94 10.1515/cclm-2022-1256 36656998
Schlattmann P. Tutorial: statistical methods for the meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Clin Chem Lab Med (CCLM). 2023;61(5):777–94.36656998
74. Dormuth CR Filion KB Platt RW Likelihood ratio meta-analysis: new motivation and approach for an old method Contemp Clin Trials 2016 47 259 65 10.1016/j.cct.2016.01.008 26837056
Dormuth CR, Filion KB, Platt RW. Likelihood ratio meta-analysis: new motivation and approach for an old method. Contemp Clin Trials. 2016;47:259–65.26837056
75. Dhamnetiya D Jha RP Shalini S Bhattacharyya K How to analyze the diagnostic performance of a New Test? Explained with illustrations J Lab Physicians 2021 14 01 090 8
Dhamnetiya D, Jha RP, Shalini S, Bhattacharyya K. How to analyze the diagnostic performance of a New Test? Explained with illustrations. J Lab Physicians. 2021;14(01):090–8.
76. Çorbacıoğlu ŞK Aksel G Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis in diagnostic accuracy studies: a guide to interpreting the area under the curve value Turkish J Emerg Med 2023 23 4 195 10.4103/tjem.tjem_182_23
Çorbacıoğlu ŞK, Aksel G. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis in diagnostic accuracy studies: a guide to interpreting the area under the curve value. Turkish J Emerg Med. 2023;23(4):195.
77. Mandrekar JN Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment J Thorac Oncol 2010 5 9 1315 6 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181ec173d 20736804
Mandrekar JN. Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5(9):1315–6.20736804
78. Takwoingi Y Guo B Riley RD Deeks JJ Performance of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy with few studies or sparse data Stat Methods Med Res 2017 26 4 1896 911 10.1177/0962280215592269 26116616
Takwoingi Y, Guo B, Riley RD, Deeks JJ. Performance of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy with few studies or sparse data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2017;26(4):1896–911.26116616
79. Serdar CC Cihan M Yücel D Serdar MA Sample size, power and effect size revisited: simplified and practical approaches in pre-clinical, clinical and laboratory studies Biochemia Med 2021 31 1 27 53 10.11613/BM.2021.010502
Serdar CC, Cihan M, Yücel D, Serdar MA. Sample size, power and effect size revisited: simplified and practical approaches in pre-clinical, clinical and laboratory studies. Biochemia Med. 2021;31(1):27–53.
80. Sotiriadis A, Papatheodorou S, Martins WP. Synthesizing evidence from diagnostic accuracy TEsts: the SEDATE guideline. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology: the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016;47(3):386–95.
81. Caraguel CG, Vanderstichel R. The two-step Fagan’s nomogram: ad hoc interpretation of a diagnostic test result without calculation. BMJ Evidence-Based Med. 2013.
