SynthesisPediatrics and neonatology2023
Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in the pediatric population: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Pediatrics and neonatology, 2023. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- How to identify respiratory pathogens in primary health care - a review on the benefits, prospects and pitfalls in using point of care tests.Infection · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Rapid identification and isolation of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 are critical methods for blocking COVID-19 transmission. The advantages of antigen tests, such as their relatively low cost and short turnaround time, can contribute to the prompt identification of infectious individuals. However, the diagnostic accuracy of antigen tests for COVID-19 in children remains inconclusive. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 in the pediatric population.
methodsWe conducted a literature search for relevant studies in the PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Biomed Central databases. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 in pediatric patients were included. In addition, we included studies that provided sufficient data to construct a 2 × 2 table on a per-patient basis. The final literature search was performed on October 10, 2021. Days after symptom onset, asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals may have been potential sources of heterogeneity. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the antigen tests were generated using a bivariate random-effects model.
resultsFive studies with 4400 participants were included. The meta-analysis of antigen tests generated a pooled sensitivity of 65.9% (95% CI: 52.8%-77.0%) and pooled specificity of 99.9% (95% CI: 98.9%-100.0%). A subgroup analysis of studies reporting antigen test data for symptomatic patients showed a pooled sensitivity of 64.5% and a pooled specificity of 99.7%. The subgroup analysis of studies that included 881 asymptomatic participants generated a pooled sensitivity of 48.4% and a pooled specificity of 99.5%.
conclusionAntigen tests exhibit moderate sensitivity and high specificity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in children. Antigen tests might have moderate sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic children, and serial testing might effectively prevent further SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
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.