ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Virology journal · 2024Pooled 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
- Review
- Limitations of point-of-care testing for low SARS CoV-2 loads: Insights for future pandemics.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Seroprevalence against SARS-CoV-2 after booster vaccination in a prison in Alicante (Spain).Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Evaluation and Limitations of the Novel Chemiluminescent Enzyme Immunoassay Technique for Measuring Total Tau Protein in the Cerebrospinal Fluid of Patients with Human Prion Disease: A 10-Year Prospective Study (2011-2020).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Enhanced real-time mass spectrometry breath analysis for the diagnosis of COVID-19.ERJ open research · 2023Article
- Economic Evaluation of Wastewater Surveillance Combined with Clinical COVID-19 Screening Tests, Japan.Emerging infectious diseases · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection by saliva; an alternative to nasopharyngeal specimen: A cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Rapid antigen-based and rapid molecular tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid review with network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.BMC medicine · 2023Review
- Clinical Validation of GenBody COVID-19 Ag, Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Rapid Antigen Tests for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in European Adult Population.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- The Deceptive COVID-19: Lessons from Common Molecular Diagnostics and a Novel Plan for the Prevention of the Next Pandemic.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Lateral Flow Immunoassays for Detecting Viral Infectious Antigens and Antibodies.Micromachines · 2022Review
- Clinical Added Value of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection in Blood Samples.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Challenges in the Detection of SARS-CoV-2: Evolution of the Lateral Flow Immunoassay as a Valuable Tool for Viral Diagnosis.Biosensors · 2022Review
- Unmasking the 'Asymptomatic' COVID-19: A Nose Question.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Salivary biomarkers as key to monitor personalized oral healthcare and precision dentistry: A scoping review.Frontiers in oral health · 2022Article
- Infection of the oral cavity with SARS-CoV-2 variants: Scope of salivary diagnostics.Frontiers in oral health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) initiated global health care challenges such as the necessity for new diagnostic tests. Diagnosis by real-time PCR remains the gold-standard method, yet economical and technical issues prohibit its use in points of care (POC) or for repetitive tests in populations. A lot of effort has been exerted in developing, using, and validating antigen-based tests (ATs). Since individual studies focus on few methodological aspects of ATs, a comparison of different tests is needed. Herein, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from articles in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. The bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities was used. Most of the AT types for SARS-CoV-2 were lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA), fluorescence immunoassays (FIA), and chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassays (CLEIA). We identified 235 articles containing data from 220,049 individuals. All ATs using nasopharyngeal samples show better performance than those with throat saliva (72% compared to 40%). Moreover, the rapid methods LFIA and FIA show about 10% lower sensitivity compared to the laboratory-based CLEIA method (72% compared to 82%). In addition, rapid ATs show higher sensitivity in symptomatic patients compared to asymptomatic patients, suggesting that viral load is a crucial parameter for ATs performed in POCs. Finally, all methods perform with very high specificity, reaching around 99%. LFIA tests, though with moderate sensitivity, appear as the most attractive method for use in POCs and for performing seroprevalence studies.
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.