SynthesisJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2021
Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 antigen tests: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of the detection accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2023Pooled it
- Investigation of the diagnostic performance of the SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen test: A meta-analysis.Journal of microbiology, immunology, and infection = Wei mian yu gan ran za zhi · 2022Pooled it
- FebriDx for rapid screening of patients with suspected COVID-19 upon hospital admission: systematic literature review and meta-analysis.The Journal of hospital infection · 2022Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Detection: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Population health and implementation outcomes of self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 using antigen detecting diagnostics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Predictors of Impaired Treatment Outcomes in COVID-19: A Single-Center Observational Study from Serbia.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 tests in the unified health system.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2023Article
- Field evaluations of four SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests during SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant wave in South Africa.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2023Article
- Determinants of the willingness of medical staff to vaccinate their children with a booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in Taizhou, China.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022Article
- Development of a high-sensitivity and short-duration fluorescenceFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to affect countries worldwide. To inhibit the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), testing of patients, contact tracing, and quarantine of their close contacts have been used as major nonpharmaceutical interventions. The advantages of antigen tests, such as low cost and rapid turnaround, may allow for the rapid identification of larger numbers of infectious persons. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Biomed Central databases from inception to January 2, 2021. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 with reference standards were included. We included studies that provided sufficient data to construct a 2 × 2 table on a per-patient basis. Only articles in English were reviewed. Summary sensitivity and specificity for antigen tests were generated using a random-effects model.
resultsFourteen studies with 8624 participants were included. The meta-analysis for antigen testing generated a pooled sensitivity of 79% (95% CI, 66%-88%; 14 studies, 8624 patients) and a pooled specificity of 100% (95% CI, 99%-100%; 14 studies, 8624 patients). The subgroup analysis of studies that reported specimen collection within 7 days after symptom onset showed a pooled sensitivity of 95% (95% CI, 78%-99%; four studies, 1342 patients) and pooled specificity of 100% (95% CI, 97%-100%; four studies, 1342 patients). Regarding the applicability, the patient selection, index tests, and reference standards of studies in our meta-analysis matched the review title.
conclusionAntigen tests have moderate sensitivity and high specificity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Antigen tests might have a higher sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 within 7 days after symptom onset. Based on our findings, antigen testing might be an effective method for identifying contagious individuals to block SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.