ReviewEJIFCC2023
Pooled analysis of diagnostic performance of the instrument-read Quidel Sofia SARS antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA).
Review in EJIFCC, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This article presents a critical literature review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of Quidel Sofia SARS antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA), a rapid diagnostic antigen test (RDT-Ag) adapted for automatic reading with portable instruments, thus potentially combining the advantages of point-of-care testing with those of a laboratory-based immunoassay. Methods: We conducted an electronic search in PubMed and Scopus with the keywords "Quidel" OR "SOFIA" AND "Antigen" AND "SARS-CoV-2" OR "COVID-19" up to March 24, 2023, for identifying articles containing data on accuracy of Quidel Sofia SARS antigen FIA for diagnosing acute SARS-CoV-2 infections. We selected those where test accuracy was compared to that of a reference SARS-CoV-2 molecular assay, and with sufficient information for constructing a 2×2 table. Results: A total number of 18 articles (48165 samples; 9.8% positive at molecular testing) were included in this meta-analysis, averaging 24 sample cohorts. The diagnostic accuracy (summary area under the curve), sensitivity and specificity were 0.980, 0.76 and 1.00 in all samples, 0.981, 0.81 and 0.99 in samples collected from symptomatic patients, 0.931, 0.55 and 1.00 in those taken from asymptomatic patients, and 0.960, 0.77 and 0.99 in samples from mixed cohorts of patients, respectively. Minor and clinically negligible differences of accuracy could be found by comparing test results in nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs. Conclusion: Quidel Sofia SARS Ag FIA meets the minimum performance criteria of accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 antigenic testing, thus combining satisfactory diagnostic performance with the advantages of being potentially used as a portable device.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37455844PMC10349315W4361201321What 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.