SynthesisViruses2022
Clinical Performance of Rapid and Point-of-Care Antigen Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Post-exposure testing at healthcare facilities with SARS-CoV-2 transmission: A rapid review.Journal of public health in Africa · 2025Review
- Reply: Response to Usefulness of the Rapid Antigen Test in Detecting SARS-CoV-2 for Infection Control in Hospitals.Infection & chemotherapy · 2024Article
- 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
- SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test Based on a New Anti-Nucleocapsid Protein Monoclonal Antibody: Development and Real-Time Validation.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- [Concordance between GeneXpert and Life Real Detection Kit in the diagnosis of acute respiratory infections].Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2023Article
- Virus variant-specific clinical performance of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test with focus on Omicron variants of concern.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2023Article
- Two Years of Experience and Methodology of Korean COVID-19 Living Clinical Practice Guideline Development.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Preoperative triage to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in surgical patients: lessons learned for resuming surgery.Surgery today · 2023Article
- Variable detection of Omicron-BA.1 and -BA.2 by SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2023Article
- Unmasking the 'Asymptomatic' COVID-19: A Nose Question.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid antigen tests (RATs) for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are widely used in the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by diverse variants. Information on the real-world performance of RATs for variants is urgently needed for decision makers. Systematic searches of the available literature and updates were conducted in PubMed, Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE, CENTRAL, and KMBASE for articles evaluating the accuracy of instrument-free RATs for variants up until 14 March 2022. A bivariate random effects model was utilized to calculate pooled diagnostic values in comparison with real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction as the reference test. A total of 7562 samples from six studies were available for the meta-analysis. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs for variants were 69.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 62.5% to 76.1%) and 100.0% (95% CI = 98.8% to 100.0%), respectively. When an additional 2179 samples from seven studies reporting sensitivities only were assessed, the pooled sensitivity dropped to 50.0% (95% CI = 44.0% to 55.0%). These findings suggest reassessment and monitoring of the diagnostic utility of RATs for variants, especially for the sensitivity aspect, to facilitate appropriate diagnosis and management of COVID-19 patients.
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.