4.7 Review

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 166,943 suspected COVID-19 patients

期刊

MICROBIOLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 265, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.micres.2022.127185

关键词

Rapid antigen test; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; RT-PCR; Screening

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [82172331, 81972028, 81802089, 81672094]
  2. Key Projects for Province Science and Technology Program of Fujian Province, China [2020D017]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province, China [2020J05285]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests (RAT) compared to RT-PCR for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The results showed that RAT had high sensitivity and specificity, especially in early infection and high viral load cases. Using nasal samples for antigen testing is a reliable alternative to nasopharyngeal sampling.
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the rapid antigen test (RAT) compared with RT-PCR (reference standard) for SARS-CoV-2, we searched MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science for relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess study quality, and quantitative synthesis was conducted using a bivariate random-effects model. The meta-analysis included 135 studies (166,943 samples). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.76 (95%CI: 0.73-0.79), 1.00 (95%CI: 1.00-1.00), 276.1 (95% CI, 184.1-414.1), 0.24 (95% CI, 0.21-0.27), and 1171 (95% CI, 782-1755), respectively. Compared to other sample types, nasal samples had the best RAT sensitivity [0.79 (95%CI: 0.71-0.85)]. The sensitivities of the different RAT kits ranged from 0.41 (95%CI: 0.23-0.61) to 0.90 (95%CI: 0.70-0.97). Sensi-tivity was markedly better in samples with lower Ct, and RAT achieved excellent pooled sensitivity at 1.00 (95% CI: 0.70-1.00) among samples with Ct < 20. Testing within 10 days of symptom onset resulted in a high sensitivity. For < 3, < 7, and < 10 days, the sensitivities were 0.91 (95%CI: 0.83-0.96), 0.89 (95%CI: 0.84-0.93), and 0.88 (95%CI: 0.83-0.92), respectively. RAT kits show high sensitivity and specificity in early infection, especially when the viral load is high. Moreover, using nasal samples for antigen testing, which are moderately sensitive and patient-friendly, is a reliable alternative to nasopharyngeal sampling. RAT might be effective for fighting the COVID-19 pandemic; however, it must be complemented by the careful handling of negative test results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据