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:Antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) used for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid protein are inexpensive, faster and easy to use alternative of Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) for diagnosis of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the diagnostic accuracy of Ag-RDTs in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). We included studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of Ag-RDTs (sensitivity and specificity) against reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as a reference standard. The study population comprised of people living in LMICs irrespective of age and gender, who had undergone testing for COVID-19. We included peer reviewed prospective or retrospective cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, case control studies, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) as well as non-randomized experimental studies which addressed the review question. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify studies published between 1 January, 2020 and 15 August, 2021. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of studies. The analysis was done using Review Manager 5.4 and R software 4.0.2. From the total of 12 diagnostic accuracy studies with 4,817 study participants, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 78.2% and 99.5% respectively. Sensitivity was marginally higher in subgroup analysis based on studies with low risk of bias and applicability concerns (78.9%) and studies using SD Biosensor Ag-RDT (79.4%). However, an inverse relation between cycle threshold (Ct) and sensitivity of Ag-RDT was not seen. The review demonstrated pooled sensitivity value approaching the minimum performance requirement for diagnosis of COVID-19 by WHO with specificity value meeting the specified requirement. Ag-RDTs, therefore have the potential to be used as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection in low resource settings where RT-PCR might not be readily accessible. However, false negative results need to be interpreted with caution.

Project description:The antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) using saliva specimens is fast, noninvasive, and suitable for SARS-CoV-2 self-testing, unlike nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) testing. We evaluated a novel Beanguard gargle (BG)-based virus collection method that can be applied to Ag-RDT as an alternative to the current RT-PCR with an NPS for early diagnosis of COVID-19. This clinical trial comprised 102 COVID-19-positive patients hospitalized after a governmental screening process and 100 healthy individuals. Paired NPS and BG-based saliva specimens from COVID-19 patients and healthy individuals were analyzed using NPS-RT-PCR, BG-RT-PCR, and BG-Ag-RDTs, whose diagnostic performance for detecting SARS-CoV-2 was compared. BG-Ag-RDTs showed high sensitivity (97.8%) and specificity (100%) in 45 patients within 6 days of illness and detected all cases of SARS-CoV-2 Alpha and Delta variants. In 11 asymptomatic active COVID-19 cases, both BG-Ag-RDTs and BG-RT-PCR showed sensitivities and specificities of 100%. Sensitivities of BG-Ag-RDT and BG-RT-PCR toward salivary viral detection were highly concordant, with no discrimination between symptomatic (97.0%), asymptomatic (100%), or SARS-CoV-2 variant (100%) cases. The intermolecular interactions between SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins and truncated canavalin, an active ingredient from the bean extract (BE), were observed in terms of physicochemical properties. The detachment of the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain from hACE2 increased as the BE concentration increased, allowing the release of the virus from hACE2 for early diagnosis. Using BG-based saliva specimens remarkably enhances the Ag-RDT diagnostic performance as an alternative to NPS and enables noninvasive, rapid, and accurate COVID-19 self-testing and mass screening, supporting efficient COVID-19 management. IMPORTANCE An Ag-RDT is less likely to be accepted as an initial test method for early diagnosis owing to its low sensitivity. However, our self-collection method, Ag-RDT using BG-based saliva specimens, showed significantly enhanced detection sensitivity and specificity toward SARS-CoV-2 including the Alpha and Delta variants in all patients tested within 6 days of illness. The method represents an attractive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for the early diagnosis of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 cases. The evidence suggests that the method could have a potential for mass screening and monitoring of COVID-19 cases.

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.

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