Direct-to-consumer self-tests sold in the UK in 2023: cross sectional review of regulation and evidence of performance.

objectivesTo review the evidence base, clinical performance claims, and usability and safety of self-tests available for sale on the UK high street.

designCross sectional review of self-tests-regulation, evidence of performance, usability, and safety.

settingTests were identified from supermarkets, pharmacies, and health and wellbeing shops within a 10 mile radius of the University of Birmingham Edgbaston Campus in 2023.

main outcome measuresAccuracy claims of self-tests, samples used to derive accuracy measures, and regulatory requirements were summarised. Ergonomics, usability and safety concerns about the equipment and instructions, including interpretability and readability, were evaluated. Details of clinical and lay person study reports (population, sample size, reference or comparator tests, test process) were summarised, and methods were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool.

resultsThirty five self-tests were identified (30 obtained), which used seven different sample types and tested for 20 different biomarkers. Accuracy claims were made in instructions for use documents for 24/30 tests: accuracy for 19, sensitivity for 17, and specificity for 16. Performance claims of ≥98% were made on accuracy for 53% (10/19) of tests, 41% (7/17) on sensitivity, and 63% (10/16) on specificity. Where reference standards were reported in instructions for use documents, 29% (5/17) evaluated the accuracy of self-tests against similar rapid tests. For usability or safety, 18/30 self-tests had at least one high risk concern, 11 because of equipment, 10 because of the sampling process, and 15 owing to instructions or interpretation. Nine sets of clinical and lay person study reports were obtained (covering 12 tests). Across documents (nine clinical study reports and six lay person study reports) and QUADAS-2 domains, 73% were rated as having unclear risk of bias owing to poor reporting, and 58% were rated as having high applicability concerns because of inappropriate study designs. Participant descriptions were particularly inadequate in clinical study reports. Even within lay person study reports, few demographics (up to four) were presented. Some populations were unrepresentative of the intended user, inappropriate reference standards and thresholds were used, and mentions of blinding were scarce.

conclusionsThis investigation highlights the need for improved regulatory oversight and clearer standards to ensure the safety and reliability of self-tests available on the UK market. Concerns about their ergonomics and usability might lead to test errors. Manufacturers' unwillingness to provide public access to study documents raises ethical concerns. Additionally, inadequate study design and reporting in available documentation hinders the ability to assess the evidence base supporting the use of self-tests. As the availability and use of self-tests continues to rise, improved regulatory oversight is urgently needed to protect the public from the effects of poor performing diagnostic self-tests.