Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36113309›Full record

SynthesisMicrobiological research2022

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 166,943 suspected COVID-19 patients.

Jia-Wen Xie, Yun He, Ya-Wen Zheng, Mao Wang, Yong Lin, Li-Rong Lin

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Microbiological research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Clinical evaluation of anterior nasal cavity swab specimens by a rapid antigen test using a GLINE-2019-nCoV Ag Kit to diagnose COVID-19.Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jia-Wen XieCenter of Clinical Laboratory, Zhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China; Institute of Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Yun HeCenter of Clinical Laboratory, Zhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China; Institute of Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Ya-Wen ZhengCenter of Clinical Laboratory, Zhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China; Institute of Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Mao WangCenter of Clinical Laboratory, Zhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China; Institute of Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Yong LinCenter of Clinical Laboratory, Zhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China; Institute of Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China. Electronic address: linyong929@xmu.edu.cn.
Li-Rong LinCenter of Clinical Laboratory, Zhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China; Institute of Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China. Electronic address: linlirong@xmu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the rapid antigen test (RAT) compared with RT-PCR (reference standard) for SARS-CoV-2, we searched MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science for relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess study quality, and quantitative synthesis was conducted using a bivariate random-effects model. The meta-analysis included 135 studies (166,943 samples). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.76 (95%CI: 0.73-0.79), 1.00 (95%CI: 1.00-1.00), 276.1 (95% CI, 184.1-414.1), 0.24 (95% CI, 0.21-0.27), and 1171 (95% CI, 782-1755), respectively. Compared to other sample types, nasal samples had the best RAT sensitivity [0.79 (95%CI: 0.71-0.85)]. The sensitivities of the different RAT kits ranged from 0.41 (95%CI: 0.23-0.61) to 0.90 (95%CI: 0.70-0.97). Sensitivity was markedly better in samples with lower Ct, and RAT achieved excellent pooled sensitivity at 1.00 (95%CI: 0.70-1.00) among samples with Ct < 20. Testing within 10 days of symptom onset resulted in a high sensitivity. For ≤ 3, ≤ 7, and ≤ 10 days, the sensitivities were 0.91 (95%CI: 0.83-0.96), 0.89 (95%CI: 0.84-0.93), and 0.88 (95%CI: 0.83-0.92), respectively. RAT kits show high sensitivity and specificity in early infection, especially when the viral load is high. Moreover, using nasal samples for antigen testing, which are moderately sensitive and patient-friendly, is a reliable alternative to nasopharyngeal sampling. RAT might be effective for fighting the COVID-19 pandemic; however, it must be complemented by the careful handling of negative test results.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2COVID-19 TestingHumansPandemicsSensitivity and SpecificityCOVID-19Rapid antigen testRT-PCRSARS-CoV-2Screening

Identifiers

PMID36113309
PMCPMC9461282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.