ReviewBMC medicine2023
Rapid antigen-based and rapid molecular tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid review with network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
Review in BMC medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of electrocardiogram algorithms for differentiating left from right outflow tract ventricular arrhythmia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities for children with pneumonia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025Pooled it
- SARS-CoV-2 Point-of-Care Testing Modalities: Integrating Molecular, Immunological, Biosensor, and AI Approaches.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Annexing isothermal nucleotide amplification enables probe-guided amplification and direct detection at ambient temperature.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Challenges and opportunities in the management of severe pneumonia. Key concepts from the Seventh Annual Meeting of Spanish Experts 2025.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026Review
- Authors' response.The Indian journal of medical research · 2026Review
- Comparative Diagnostic Performance of the 36-Minute STANDARD M10 Fast Assay for Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A and B, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus in Near-Patient Settings.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Article
- Real-world impact of point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 in an ambulatory setting of an integrated health network.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026Article
- 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
- Association between maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection & clinical outcomes in infants: A multicentric retrospective cohort study in India.The Indian journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Performance of a Combined Rapid Antigen Test for Detecting SARS-CoV-2, Influenza Virus, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus in Symptomatic Patients in Tertiary Care.Journal of medical virology · 2025Article
- A unified framework for diagnostic test development and evaluation during outbreaks of emerging infections.Communications medicine · 2024Review
- The Impact of Repeating COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Tests on Prevalence Boundary Performance and Missed Diagnoses.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Evaluation of a Sample-to-Result POCKIT Central SARS-CoV-2 PCR System.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Evaluation of a novel lyophilized-pellet-based 2019-nCoV nucleic acid detection kit for the diagnosis of COVID-19.PloS one · 2023Article
- The role of SARS-CoV-2 N protein in diagnosis and vaccination in the context of emerging variants: present status and prospects.Frontiers in 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
24 authors at 15 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe global spread of COVID-19 created an explosion in rapid tests with results in < 1 hour, but their relative performance characteristics are not fully understood yet. Our aim was to determine the most sensitive and specific rapid test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.
methodsDesign: Rapid review and diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis (DTA-NMA). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing rapid antigen and/or rapid molecular test(s) to detect SARS-CoV-2 in participants of any age, suspected or not with SARS-CoV-2 infection. INFORMATION SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to September 12, 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen and molecular tests suitable for detecting SARS-CoV-2. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment: Screening of literature search results was conducted by one reviewer; data abstraction was completed by one reviewer and independently verified by a second reviewer. Risk of bias was not assessed in the included studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis and DTA-NMA.
resultsWe included 93 studies (reported in 88 articles) relating to 36 rapid antigen tests in 104,961 participants and 23 rapid molecular tests in 10,449 participants. Overall, rapid antigen tests had a sensitivity of 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.70-0.79) and specificity of 0.99 (0.98-0.99). Rapid antigen test sensitivity was higher when nasal or combined samples (e.g., combinations of nose, throat, mouth, or saliva samples) were used, but lower when nasopharyngeal samples were used, and in those classified as asymptomatic at the time of testing. Rapid molecular tests may result in fewer false negatives than rapid antigen tests (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.88-0.96; specificity: 0.98, 0.97-0.99). The tests with the highest sensitivity and specificity estimates were the Xpert Xpress rapid molecular test by Cepheid (sensitivity: 0.99, 0.83-1.00; specificity: 0.97, 0.69-1.00) among the 23 commercial rapid molecular tests and the COVID-VIRO test by AAZ-LMB (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.48-0.99; specificity: 0.98, 0.44-1.00) among the 36 rapid antigen tests we examined.
conclusionsRapid molecular tests were associated with both high sensitivity and specificity, while rapid antigen tests were mainly associated with high specificity, according to the minimum performance requirements by WHO and Health Canada. Our rapid review was limited to English, peer-reviewed published results of commercial tests, and study risk of bias was not assessed. A full systematic review is required. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021289712.
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.