SynthesisBMJ evidence-based medicine2022
Diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for diagnosis of current SARS-CoV-2 infections in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 5 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Association Between Rapid Antigen Detection Tests and Real-Time Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.International journal of public health · 2023Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for diagnosis of current SARS-CoV-2 infections in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled 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
- Next-Generation Nucleic Acid-Based Diagnostics for Viral Pathogens: Lessons Learned from the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Exploring the Complexities of Long COVID.Viruses · 2024Review
- Mobile Efficient Diagnostics of Infectious Diseases via On-Chip RT-qPCR: MEDIC-PCR.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2023Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of Panbio™ rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 in paediatric population.BMC pediatrics · 2023Article
- Evaluation of STANDARDJournal of clinical virology plus · 2023Article
- Article
- Rapid Tests for Detecting SARS-CoV-2-Specific Antigens: Variable Value in Different Periods of the Pandemic in Berlin, Germany.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2022Article
- Article
- Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy of the STANDARD M10 Assay for the Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in the Point-of-Care and Critical Care Settings.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- LumiraDX SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test for Diagnosing Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Critical Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test from self-collected anterior nasal swabs in children compared to rapid antigen test and RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal swabs collected by healthcare workers: A multicentric prospective study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Development of a high-sensitivity and short-duration fluorescenceFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
- Modeling the Impact of Nonpharmaceutical Interventions on COVID-19 Transmission in K-12 Schools.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for diagnosis of current SARS-CoV-2 infections in children under real-life conditions.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, INAHTA HTA database, preprint servers (via Europe PMC), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP from 1 January 2020 to 7 May 2021; NICE Evidence Search, NICE Guidance, FIND Website from 1 January 2020 to 24 May 2021. REVIEW
methodsDiagnostic cross-sectional or cohort studies were eligible for inclusion if they had paediatric study participants and compared rapid point-of care tests for diagnosing current SARS-CoV-2 infections with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias and the applicability of the included studies. Bivariate meta-analyses with random effects were performed. Variability was assessed by subgroup analyses.
results17 studies with a total of 6355 paediatric study participants were included. All studies compared antigen tests against RT-PCR. Overall, studies evaluated eight antigen tests from six different brands. Only one study was at low risk of bias. The pooled overall diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in paediatric populations was 64.2% (95% CI 57.4% to 70.5%) and 99.1% (95% CI 98.2% to 99.5%), respectively. In symptomatic children, the pooled diagnostic sensitivity was 71.8% (95% CI 63.6% to 78.8%) and the pooled diagnostic specificity was 98.7% (95% CI 96.6% to 99.5%). The pooled diagnostic sensitivity in asymptomatic children was 56.2% (95% CI 47.6% to 64.4%) and the pooled diagnostic specificity was 98.6% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.3%).
conclusionsThe performance of current antigen tests in paediatric populations under real-life conditions varies broadly. Relevant data were only identified for very few antigen tests on the market, and the risk of bias was mostly unclear due to poor reporting. Additionally, the most common uses of these tests in children (eg, self-testing in schools or parents testing their toddlers before kindergarten) have not been addressed in clinical performance studies yet. The observed low diagnostic sensitivity may impact the planned purpose of the broad implementation of testing programmes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021236313.
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.