ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Population health and implementation outcomes of self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 using antigen detecting diagnostics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: COVID-19 antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for self-testing (C19ST) have been widely implemented. However, evidence on population health and implementation outcomes remains limited. We systematically evaluated population health and implementation outcomes of C19ST to inform WHO guidelines and pandemic preparedness. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42022299977), searching Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, MedRxiv, clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane Library from Dec 1, 2020, to Oct 1, 2025. We included cohort, case-control, cross-sectional, before-and-after, and randomised studies with symptomatic and asymptomatic participants using commercially available C19ST Ag-RDTs. Primary outcomes included C19ST population health (case detection, test positivity, number needed to test (NNT)) and implementation outcomes (uptake, adherence, result reporting). Meta-analyses used binomial-normal generalised linear mixed models; study quality assessment used the JBI Quasi-Experimental Tool. Findings: Of 19,473 records screened, 61 studies (87 datasets) with 25,288,225 participants (78% asymptomatic) were included. C19ST detected 31 (95% CI 14-65) cases per 1000 individuals, missing 14% (95% CI 1-65%) compared to molecular testing. Test positivity was 7 per 1000 tests (95% CI 3-15); false positives occurred in 0.4% (95% CI 0.2-1.0%). NNT was 75 in symptomatic and 1002 in asymptomatic individuals. Uptake, adherence, and result reporting were high, but estimates were limited by selection bias. C19ST was also reported to improve perceptions of safety, and reduce self-isolation, workplace absenteeism, and other societal disruptions, supporting the continuity of daily activities. Heterogeneity was substantial. Interpretation: C19ST improves case detection and supports pandemic control with acceptable accuracy and meaningful societal benefits. These findings support the use of antigen-based self-testing as a complementary tool for a pandemic response. Studies included further highlight the limited use of standardised frameworks for evaluating population health and implementation outcomes of novel diagnostics. Funding: Ministry of Science, Research and Arts of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany.
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.