SynthesisFrontiers in public health2024
Performance of self-performed SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- SARS-CoV-2 Point-of-Care Testing Modalities: Integrating Molecular, Immunological, Biosensor, and AI Approaches.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Population health and implementation outcomes of self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 using antigen detecting diagnostics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Using the Abbott™ PANBIO™ COVID-19 SELF-TEST Rapid Test in Patients Seen at INER.Biomedicines · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of self-tested SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests. Methods: Databases of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for original studies investigating accuracy of self-tested SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests, with RT-PCR as "gold standard." Results: Forty-five eligible studies were found after database searching and screening using pre-defined criteria. The accuracy results from 50,897 suspected COVID-19 patients were pooled, and the overall sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.77, 1.00, and 625.95, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed higher sensitivity of rapid antigen tests in subgroups of Abbott Panbio, self-collected nasal swab samples, and use of nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab and lower Ct cutoff value in RT-PCR. Conclusion: Fully self-performed SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests showed overall high accuracy compared to "gold standard," and are reliable surrogates for the standard test of COVID-19 using nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal samples and RT-PCR.
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.