Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 : A systematic review and meta-analysis of 166,943 suspected COVID-19 patients
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved..
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the rapid antigen test (RAT) compared with RT-PCR (reference standard) for SARS-CoV-2, we searched MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science for relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess study quality, and quantitative synthesis was conducted using a bivariate random-effects model. The meta-analysis included 135 studies (166,943 samples). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.76 (95%CI: 0.73-0.79), 1.00 (95%CI: 1.00-1.00), 276.1 (95% CI, 184.1-414.1), 0.24 (95% CI, 0.21-0.27), and 1171 (95% CI, 782-1755), respectively. Compared to other sample types, nasal samples had the best RAT sensitivity [0.79 (95%CI: 0.71-0.85)]. The sensitivities of the different RAT kits ranged from 0.41 (95%CI: 0.23-0.61) to 0.90 (95%CI: 0.70-0.97). Sensitivity was markedly better in samples with lower Ct, and RAT achieved excellent pooled sensitivity at 1.00 (95%CI: 0.70-1.00) among samples with Ct < 20. Testing within 10 days of symptom onset resulted in a high sensitivity. For ≤ 3, ≤ 7, and ≤ 10 days, the sensitivities were 0.91 (95%CI: 0.83-0.96), 0.89 (95%CI: 0.84-0.93), and 0.88 (95%CI: 0.83-0.92), respectively. RAT kits show high sensitivity and specificity in early infection, especially when the viral load is high. Moreover, using nasal samples for antigen testing, which are moderately sensitive and patient-friendly, is a reliable alternative to nasopharyngeal sampling. RAT might be effective for fighting the COVID-19 pandemic; however, it must be complemented by the careful handling of negative test results.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2022 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2022 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:265 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Microbiological research - 265(2022) vom: 01. Dez., Seite 127185 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Xie, Jia-Wen [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
COVID-19 |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 17.10.2022 Date Revised 21.12.2022 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.micres.2022.127185 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM346300452 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM346300452 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226031111.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.micres.2022.127185 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1154.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM346300452 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)36113309 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S0944-5013(22)00225-7 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Xie, Jia-Wen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 |b A systematic review and meta-analysis of 166,943 suspected COVID-19 patients |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 17.10.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 21.12.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2022 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the rapid antigen test (RAT) compared with RT-PCR (reference standard) for SARS-CoV-2, we searched MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science for relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess study quality, and quantitative synthesis was conducted using a bivariate random-effects model. The meta-analysis included 135 studies (166,943 samples). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.76 (95%CI: 0.73-0.79), 1.00 (95%CI: 1.00-1.00), 276.1 (95% CI, 184.1-414.1), 0.24 (95% CI, 0.21-0.27), and 1171 (95% CI, 782-1755), respectively. Compared to other sample types, nasal samples had the best RAT sensitivity [0.79 (95%CI: 0.71-0.85)]. The sensitivities of the different RAT kits ranged from 0.41 (95%CI: 0.23-0.61) to 0.90 (95%CI: 0.70-0.97). Sensitivity was markedly better in samples with lower Ct, and RAT achieved excellent pooled sensitivity at 1.00 (95%CI: 0.70-1.00) among samples with Ct < 20. Testing within 10 days of symptom onset resulted in a high sensitivity. For ≤ 3, ≤ 7, and ≤ 10 days, the sensitivities were 0.91 (95%CI: 0.83-0.96), 0.89 (95%CI: 0.84-0.93), and 0.88 (95%CI: 0.83-0.92), respectively. RAT kits show high sensitivity and specificity in early infection, especially when the viral load is high. Moreover, using nasal samples for antigen testing, which are moderately sensitive and patient-friendly, is a reliable alternative to nasopharyngeal sampling. RAT might be effective for fighting the COVID-19 pandemic; however, it must be complemented by the careful handling of negative test results | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Meta-Analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a COVID-19 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a RT-PCR | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Rapid antigen test | |
| 650 | 4 | |a SARS-CoV-2 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Screening | |
| 700 | 1 | |a He, Yun |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zheng, Ya-Wen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wang, Mao |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lin, Yong |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lin, Li-Rong |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Microbiological research |d 1994 |g 265(2022) vom: 01. Dez., Seite 127185 |w (DE-627)NLM075034050 |x 1618-0623 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:265 |g year:2022 |g day:01 |g month:12 |g pages:127185 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2022.127185 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 265 |j 2022 |b 01 |c 12 |h 127185 | ||