SynthesisActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2022
Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis on real world data.
Synthesis in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- SARS-CoV-2 Point-of-Care Testing Modalities: Integrating Molecular, Immunological, Biosensor, and AI Approaches.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Obtained by Mid-turbinate Nasal Swabs.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Modelling disease mitigation at mass gatherings: A case study of COVID-19 at the 2022 FIFA World Cup.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- United Against Rabies Forum: The first 2 years.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- Systematic Approach to Address Early Pandemic's Diagnostic Unmet Needs.Frontiers in 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim Rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests on nasopharyngeal specimens have been recently made available for SARS-CoV-2 infections, and early studies suggested their potential utilization as rapid screening and diagnostic testing. The present systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to assess available evidence and to explore the reliability of antigenic tests in the management of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe reported our meta-analysis according to the PRISMA statement. We searched Pubmed, Embase, and pre-print archive medRxiv.og for eligible studies published up to November 5th, 2020. Raw data included true/false positive and negative tests, and the total number of tests. Sensitivity and specificity data were calculated for every study, and then pooled in a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 measure. Reporting bias was assessed by means of funnel plots and regression analysis.
resultsBased on 25 studies, we computed a pooled sensitivity of 72.8% (95%CI 62.4-81.3), a specificity of 99.4% (95%CI 99.0-99.7), with high heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias. More precisely, RAD tests exhibited higher sensitivity on samples with high viral load (i.e. <25 Cycle Threshold; 97.6%; 95%CI 94.1-99.0), compared to those with low viral load (≥25 Cycle Threshold; 43.6%; 95% 27.6-61.1). DISCUSSION: As the majority of collected reports were either cohort or case-control studies, deprived of preventive power analysis and often oversampling positive tests, overall performances may have been overestimated. Therefore, the massive referral to antigenic tests in place of RT-qPCR is currently questionable, and also their deployment as mass screening test may lead to intolerable share of missing diagnoses. On the other hand, RAD tests may find a significant role in primary care and in front-line settings (e.g. Emergency Departments). (www.actabiomedica.it).
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.