SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022
Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Detection: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 antigen test for SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 166,943 suspected COVID-19 patients.Microbiological research · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Ultrafast Plasmonic Nanocavity Thermocycler for Direct Real-Time Reverse Transcription PCR at a Point-of-Care Level.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2026Article
- Lessons learned from Okinawa, Japan underscore the importance of clinical epidemiology in COVID-19 prevention and control.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2026Article
- Risk of Infections Among Contacts of COVID-19 Cases in the Healthcare Setting: Experience of One University Hospital.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- In Vitro Diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 Infection Authorized in the United States and Approved in Japan.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Comparison of the analytical and clinical sensitivities of 34 rapid antigen tests with prevalent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Improving the accuracy of emergency department clinicians in detecting SARS-COV-2 on chest X-rays using a bespoke virtual training platform.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Diagnostic challenges for severe infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in pregnancy: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2025Article
- Observational
- Key Insights into Respiratory Virus Testing: Sensitivity and Clinical Implications.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Isothermal Detection Methods for Fungal Pathogens in Closed Environment Agriculture.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Use of high-resolution fluorescence in situ hybridization for fast and robust detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNAs.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The Suitability of RNA from Positive SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Tests for Whole Virus Genome Sequencing and Variant Identification to Maintain Genomic Surveillance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Ten rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 widely differ in their ability to detect Omicron-BA.4 and -BA.5.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 tests in the unified health system.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2023Article
- Comparative Longitudinal Serological Study of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Profiles in People with COVID-19.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Diagnostic performance of standardized typical CT findings for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
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.