Dataset Information

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: The identification of viral RNA using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the gold standard for identifying an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2. The limitations of RT-qPCR such as requirement of expensive instruments, trained staff and laboratory facilities led to development of rapid antigen tests (RATs). The performance of RATs has been widely evaluated and found to be varied in different settings. The present systematic review aims to evaluate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the commercially available RATs. This review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021278105). Literature search was performed through PubMed, Embase and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to search studies published up to 26 August 2021. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs and subgroup analyses were calculated. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in each study. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs were 70% (95% CI: 69-71) and 98% (95% CI: 98-98), respectively. In subgroup analyses, nasal swabs showed the highest sensitivity of 83% (95% CI: 80-86) followed by nasopharyngeal swabs 71% (95% CI: 70-72), throat swabs 69% (95% CI: 63-75) and saliva 68% (95% CI: 59-77). Samples from symptomatic patients showed a higher sensitivity of 82% (95% CI: 82-82) as compared to asymptomatic patients at 68% (95% CI: 65-71), while a cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤25 showed a higher sensitivity of 96% (95% CI: 95-97) as compared to higher Ct value. Although the sensitivity of RATs needs to be enhanced, it may still be a viable option in places where laboratory facilities are lacking for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease.

SUBMITTER: Khalid MF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8774565 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSuccessful malaria treatment, control and elimination programs require accurate, affordable, and field-deployable diagnostic tests. A number of studies have directly compared diagnostic performance between the new ultrasensitive rapid diagnostic test (us-RDT) and conventional rapid diagnostic test (co-RDT) for detecting malaria. Thus, we undertook this review to directly compare pooled diagnostic performance of us-RDT and co-RDT for detection of malaria.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and ProQuest were searched from their inception until 31 January 2021 accompanied by forward and backward citations tracking. Two authors independently assessed the quality of included studies by RevMan5 software (using the QUADAS-2 checklist). Diagnostic accuracy estimates (sensitivity and specificity and others) were pooled using a random-effect model and 95% confidence interval (CI) in Stata 15 software.ResultsFifteen studies with a total of 20,236 paired co-RDT and us-RDT tests were included in the meta-analysis. Molecular methods (15 studies) and immunoassay test (one study) were used as standard methods for comparison with co-RDT and us-RDT tests. The pooled sensitivity for co-RDT and us-RDT were 42% (95%CI: 25-62%) and 61% (95%CI: 47-73%), respectively, with specificity of 99% (95%CI: 98-100%) for co-RDT, and 99% (95%CI: 96-99%) for us-RDT. In asymptomatic individuals, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of co-RDT were 27% (95%CI: 8-58%) and 100% (95%CI: 97-100%), respectively, while us-RDT had a sensitivity of 50% (95%CI: 33-68%) and specificity of 98% (95%CI: 94-100%). In low transmission settings, pooled sensitivity for co-RDT was 36% (95%CI: 9 76%) and 62% (95%CI: 44 77%) for us RDT, while in high transmission areas, pooled sensitivity for co RDT and us RDT were 62% (95%CI: 39 80%) and 75% (95%CI: 57-87%), respectively.ConclusionThe us-RDT test showed better performance than co-RDT test, and this characteristic is more evident in asymptomatic individuals and low transmission areas; nonetheless, additional studies integrating a range of climate, geography, and demographics are needed to reliably understand the potential of the us-RDT.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.Results5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).ConclusionHigher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179452.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19).MethodsPubMed, 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.ResultsEight 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%).ConclusionAmong 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.

Dataset Information

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets