ReviewArchives of medical science : AMS2022
Diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests in detecting coronavirus disease 2019: systematic review.
Review in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Antibody-mediated immune responses and inflammatory bowel disease: insights from genetic correlation and Mendelian randomization.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2026Article
- Rapid assays of SARS-CoV-2 virus and noble biosensors by nanomaterials.Nano convergence · 2024Review
- An update on lateral flow immunoassay for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.AIMS microbiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The rapid transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requires a fast, accurate, and affordable detection method. Despite doubts of their diagnostic accuracy, rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are used worldwide due to their practicality. This systematic review aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based RDTs in detecting COVID-19. Material and methods: A literature search was carried out on five journal databases using the PRISMA-P 2015 method. We included all studies published up to February 2021. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. Data regarding peer-review status, study design, test kit information, immunoglobulin class, target antigen, and the number of samples were extracted and tabulated. We estimated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with a 95% confidence interval. Results: Thirty-three studies met the eligibility criteria. The pooled data results showed that the combined detection method of IgM or IgG had the highest sensitivity and NPV, which were 73.41% (95% CI: 72.22-74.57) and 75.34% (95% CI: 74.51-76.16), respectively. The single IgG detection method had the highest specificity and PPV of 96.68% (95% CI: 96.25-97.07) and 95.97% (95% CI: 95.47-96.42%), respectively. Conclusions: Antibody-based RDTs are not satisfactory as primary diagnostic tests but have utility as a screening tool.
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.