Clinical Accuracy of Instrument-Read SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests (Ag-IRRDTs)
This systematic review (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021282476) aims to collect and analyse current evidence on real-world performance based on clinical accuracy of instrument-read rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-IRRDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 identification. We used PRISMA Checklist and searched d...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Microbiology |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/9489067 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | This systematic review (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021282476) aims to collect and analyse current evidence on real-world performance based on clinical accuracy of instrument-read rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-IRRDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 identification. We used PRISMA Checklist and searched databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-IRRDTs as of 30 September 2021, and included 40 independent clinical studies resulting in 48 Ag-IRRDT datasets with 137,770 samples. Across all datasets, pooled Ag-IRRDT sensitivity was 67.1% (95% CI: 65.9%–68.3%) and specificity was 99.4% with a tight CI. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-IRRDTs did not demonstrate a significant superiority over SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests which do not require a reader instrument, even in the case where surveillance and screening datasets were excluded from the analysis. Nevertheless, they provide connectivity advantages and remove operator interface (in results-reading) issues. The lower sensitivity of certain brands of Ag-IRRDTs can be overcome in high prevalence areas with high frequency of testing. New SARS-CoV-2 variants are major concern for current and future diagnostic performance of these tests. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1687-9198 |