ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Self-tests for COVID-19: What is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023).
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Acceptability of self-sampling and self-testing for infections: a rapid systematic review on public users' views.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Fractional BNT162b2 boosters induce durable immune responses after non-mRNA priming in Mongolia: a randomised controlled trial.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Trial
- Lessons Learned: Defining the Right Specifications for Diagnostics in Outbreak Situations.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Article
- Population health and implementation outcomes of self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 using antigen detecting diagnostics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Understanding capability, opportunity, and motivation for at-home COVID-19 testing in underserved populations during the pandemic.Translational behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Usabilidade de autoteste de antígeno para COVID-19: fatores associados e desafios relatados.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2026Article
- Acceptability and usability of COVID-19 antigen self-test in populations under socioeconomic vulnerability in Brazil: A cross-sectional study.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Acceptability of Covid-19 self-testing among Primary Health Care users.Revista de saude publica · 2026Article
- Syphilis self-testing and implications for syphilis control and prevention.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Practicability of a malaria rapid diagnostic self-test among artisanal gold miners in French Guiana: a cross-sectional study.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Usability vulnerabilities of elderly adults in at-home COVID-19 self-test kits: findings from a South Korea usability study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Perspectives on App-Assisted Self-Testing Using Rapid Diagnostic Tests Among Community Members, Health Care Providers, and Public Health Leaders in Kenya, South Africa, and Zambia: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Evolution: Implications for Diagnosis, Treatment, Vaccine Effectiveness and Development.Vaccines · 2024Review
- LAMP-CRISPR/Cas12a-based impedimetric biosensor powered by FeMikrochimica acta · 2024Article
- Core principles of Malakit intervention for transferability in other contexts.Malaria journal · 2024Review
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 self-testing strategy (COVIDST) can rapidly identify symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals and their contacts, potentially reducing transmission. In this living systematic review, we evaluated the evidence for real-world COVIDST performance. Two independent reviewers searched six databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, World Health Organization database, Cochrane COVID-19 registry, Europe PMC) for the period April 1st, 2020, to January 18th, 2023. Data on studies evaluating COVIDST against laboratory-based conventional testing and reported on diagnostic accuracy, feasibility, acceptability, impact, and qualitative outcomes were abstracted. Bivariate random effects meta-analyses of COVIDST accuracy were performed (n = 14). Subgroup analyses (by sampling site, symptomatic/asymptomatic infection, supervised/unsupervised strategy, with/without digital supports) were conducted. Data from 70 included studies, conducted across 25 countries with a median sample size of 817 (range: 28-784,707) were pooled. Specificity and DOR was high overall, irrespective of subgroups (98.37-99.71%). Highest sensitivities were reported for: a) symptomatic individuals (73.91%, 95%CI: 68.41-78.75%; n = 9), b) mid-turbinate nasal samples (77.79%, 95%CI: 56.03-90.59%; n = 14), c) supervised strategy (86.67%, 95%CI: 59.64-96.62%; n = 13), and d) use of digital interventions (70.15%, 95%CI: 50.18-84.63%; n = 14). Lower sensitivity was attributed to absence of symptoms, errors in test conduct and absence of supervision or a digital support. We found no difference in COVIDST sensitivity between delta and omicron pre-dominant period. Digital supports increased confidence in COVIDST reporting and interpretation (n = 16). Overall acceptability was 91.0-98.7% (n = 2) with lower acceptability reported for daily self-testing (39.5-51.1%). Overall feasibility was 69.0-100.0% (n = 5) with lower feasibility (35.9-64.6%) for serial self-testing. COVIDST decreased closures in school, workplace, and social events (n = 4). COVIDST is an effective rapid screening strategy for home-, workplace- or school-based screening, for symptomatic persons, and for preventing transmission during outbreaks. These data will guide COVIDST policy. Our review demonstrates that COVIDST has paved the way for self-testing in pandemics worldwide.
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.