Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37903650›Full record

SynthesisThe Medical journal of Australia2023

COVID-19 rapid antigen tests approved for self-testing in Australia: published diagnostic test accuracy studies and manufacturer-supplied information. A systematic review.

Katy Jl Bell, Yuyang Li, Ellie Medcalf, Deonna Ackermann

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Medical journal of Australia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Communicating the Imperfect Diagnostic Accuracy of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-Tests: An Online Randomized Experiment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
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

4 authors.

Katy Jl BellSchool of Public Health, the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.ORCID 0000-0002-0137-3218
Yuyang LiSchool of Public Health, the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.
Ellie MedcalfSchool of Public Health, the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.
Deonna AckermannSchool of Public Health, the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.ORCID 0000-0002-4089-7823

Funding

Cancer Institute NSW 2021/CBG0002National Health and Medical Research Council 1174523National Health and Medical Research Council 2014163National Health and Medical Research Council 2022279
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo review evaluations of the diagnostic accuracy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rapid antigen tests (RATs) approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for self-testing by ambulatory people in Australia; to compare these estimates with values reported by test manufacturers. STUDY

designSystematic review of publications in any language that reported cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort studies in which the participants were ambulatory people in the community or health care workers in hospitals in whom severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was suspected, and the results of testing self-collected biological samples with a TGA-approved COVID-19 RAT were compared with those of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) were checked and compared with manufacturer estimates published on the TGA website. DATA SOURCES: Publications (to 1 September 2022) identified in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the World Health Organization COVID-19 research database. Information on manufacturer diagnostic accuracy evaluations was obtained from the TGA website. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twelve publications that reported a total of eighteen evaluations of eight RATs approved by the TGA for self-testing (manufacturers: All Test, Roche, Flowflex, MP Biomedicals, Clungene, Panbio, V-Chek, Whistling) were identified. Five studies were undertaken in the Netherlands, two each in Germany and the United States, and one each in Denmark, Belgium, and Canada; test sample collection was unsupervised in twelve studies, and supervised by health care workers or researchers in six. Estimated sensitivity with unsupervised sample collection ranged from 20.9% (MP Biomedicals) to 74.3% (Roche), and with supervised collection from 7.7% (V-Chek) to 84.4% (Panbio); the estimates were between 8.2 and 88 percentage points lower than the values reported by the manufacturers. Test specificity was high for all RATs (97.9-100%).

conclusionsThe risk of false negative results when using COVID-19 RATs for self-testing may be considerably higher than apparent in manufacturer reports on the TGA website, with implications for the reliability of these tests for ruling out infection.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 TestingCross-Sectional StudiesDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansReproducibility of ResultsSARS-CoV-2Self-TestingSensitivity and SpecificityCOVID-19Diagnostic tests and proceduresEvidence-based medicinePublic healthSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37903650
PMCPMC10952141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.