ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2023
The Diagnostic Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Nasal Rapid Antigen Self-Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Acceptability of self-sampling and self-testing for infections: a rapid systematic review on public users' views.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- A comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review of breath analysis in detection of COVID-19 through Volatile organic compounds.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2024Pooled it
- Comparing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling with molecular and professional-use tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- The Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Bleeding in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Pooled 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
- Real-World Performance of COVID-19 Antigen Tests: Predictive Modeling and Laboratory-Based Validation.JMIRx med · 2025Article
- Patient centric blood sampling and analysis for diagnostics and laboratory medicine.Bioanalysis · 2025Review
- Temporal Trend of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant and RSV in the Nasal Cavity and Accuracy of the Newly Developed Antigen-Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Test.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Risk of Testing Positive for COVID-19 among Healthcare and Healthcare-Related Workers.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Review
- A review of current effective COVID-19 testing methods and quality control.Archives of 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a disease that quickly spread into a pandemic. As such, management of the COVID-19 pandemic is deemed necessary, and it can be achieved by using reliable diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2. The gold standard for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is a molecular detection test using the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction technique (rt-PCR), which is characterized by various disadvantages in contrast with the self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests that produce results faster, have lower costs and do not require specialized personnel. Therefore, the usefulness of self-taken rapid antigen tests is indisputable in disease management, facilitating both the health system and the examinees. Our systematic review aims to access the diagnostic accuracy of the self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. All the studies included in this systematic review were found after searching the two databases, Scopus and PubΜed. All but original articles were excluded from this systematic review, while all the studies concerning self-taken rapid antigen tests with a nasal sample and using rt-PCR as a reference test were included. Meta-analysis results and plots were obtained using RevMan software and the MetaDTA website.
resultsAll 22 studies included in this meta-analysis demonstrated a specificity of self-taken rapid antigen tests greater than 98%, which exceeds the minimum required yield for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, according to the WHO. Notwithstanding, the sensitivity varies (from 40% to 98.7%), which makes them in some cases unsuitable for the diagnosis of positive cases. In the majority of the studies, the minimum required performance set by the WHO was achieved, which is 80% compared with rt-PCR tests. The pooled sensitivity of self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests was calculated as 91.1% and the pooled specificity was 99.5%.
conclusionsIn conclusion, self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests have many advantages over rt-PCR tests, such as those related to the rapid reading of the results and their low cost. They also have considerable specificity and some self-taken rapid antigen test kits also have remarkable sensitivity. Consequently, self-taken rapid antigen tests have a wide range of utility but are not able to completely replace rt-PCR tests.
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.