TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Detection
T2 - A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis
AU - Arshadi, Maniya
AU - Fardsanei, Fatemeh
AU - Deihim, Behnaz
AU - Farshadzadeh, Zahra
AU - Nikkhahi, Farhad
AU - Khalili, Farima
AU - Sotgiu, Giovanni
AU - Shahidi Bonjar, Amir Hashem
AU - Centis, Rosella
AU - Migliori, Giovanni Battista
AU - Nasiri, Mohammad Javad
AU - Mirsaeidi, Mehdi
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2022 Arshadi, Fardsanei, Deihim, Farshadzadeh, Nikkhahi, Khalili, Sotgiu, Shahidi Bonjar, Centis, Migliori, Nasiri and Mirsaeidi.
PY - 2022/4/7
Y1 - 2022/4/7
N2 - Introduction: Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 is time-consuming and sometimes not feasible in developing nations. Rapid antigen test (RAT) could decrease the load of diagnosis. However, the efficacy of RAT is yet to be investigated comprehensively. Thus, the current systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RAT against RT-PCR methods as the reference standard. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE/Pubmed and Embase databases for the relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Diagnostic accuracy measures [i.e., sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and the area under the curve (AUC)] were pooled with a random-effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with Meta-DiSc (Version 1.4, Cochrane Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain). Results: After reviewing retrieved records, we identified 60 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the rapid antigen tests against the reference test (the real-time PCR) were 69% (95% CI: 68–70) and 99% (95% CI: 99–99). The PLR, NLR, DOR and the AUC estimates were found to be 72 (95% CI: 44–119), 0.30 (95% CI: 0.26–0.36), 316 (95% CI: 167–590) and 97%, respectively. Conclusion: The present study indicated that using RAT kits is primarily recommended for the early detection of patients suspected of having COVID-19, particularly in countries with limited resources and laboratory equipment. However, the negative RAT samples may need to be confirmed using molecular tests, mainly when the symptoms of COVID-19 are present.
AB - Introduction: Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 is time-consuming and sometimes not feasible in developing nations. Rapid antigen test (RAT) could decrease the load of diagnosis. However, the efficacy of RAT is yet to be investigated comprehensively. Thus, the current systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RAT against RT-PCR methods as the reference standard. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE/Pubmed and Embase databases for the relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Diagnostic accuracy measures [i.e., sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and the area under the curve (AUC)] were pooled with a random-effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with Meta-DiSc (Version 1.4, Cochrane Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain). Results: After reviewing retrieved records, we identified 60 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the rapid antigen tests against the reference test (the real-time PCR) were 69% (95% CI: 68–70) and 99% (95% CI: 99–99). The PLR, NLR, DOR and the AUC estimates were found to be 72 (95% CI: 44–119), 0.30 (95% CI: 0.26–0.36), 316 (95% CI: 167–590) and 97%, respectively. Conclusion: The present study indicated that using RAT kits is primarily recommended for the early detection of patients suspected of having COVID-19, particularly in countries with limited resources and laboratory equipment. However, the negative RAT samples may need to be confirmed using molecular tests, mainly when the symptoms of COVID-19 are present.
KW - COVID-19
KW - SARS-CoV-2
KW - meta-analysis
KW - rapid antigen test
KW - sensitivity
KW - specificity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85128756415&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85128756415&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fmed.2022.870738
DO - 10.3389/fmed.2022.870738
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85128756415
VL - 9
JO - Frontiers in Medicine
JF - Frontiers in Medicine
SN - 2296-858X
M1 - 870738
ER -