• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

J Clin Virol . Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen detection tests to real time polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of SARS-C

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Clin Virol


. 2021 Sep 16;144:104985.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2021.104985. Online ahead of print.
Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen detection tests to real time polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis


Jonghoo Lee[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jae-Uk Song[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Sung Ryul Shim[SUP] 3 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: Timely and accurate diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is crucial to reduce the risk of viral transmission. We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register. The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and a hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (HSROC) of RADTs were pooled using meta-analysis. We used commercial and laboratory-developed reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as reference standards.
Results: We identified 24 studies comprising 14,188 patients. The overall pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of RADTs for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were 0.68 (95%CI, 0.59 - 0.76), 0.99 (95%CI, 0.99 - 1.00), and 426.70 (95% CI, 168.37 - 1081.65), respectively. RADTs and RT-PCR had moderate agreement with an estimated pooled Cohen's kappa statistic of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.74-0.77), and area under the HSROC of 0.98 (95%CI, 0.96 - 0.99). The pooled sensitivity of RADTs was significantly increased in subjects with viral load of Ct-value ≤25 or in those within 5 days after symptom onset than it was in subjects with lower viral loads or longer symptom duration.
Conclusions: The overall sensitivity of RADTs was inferior to that of the RT-PCR assay. The RADTs were more sensitive for samples of Ct-value ≤ 25 and might be suitable for subjects in the community within 5 days of symptom onset.

Keywords: Antigens; COVID-19 testing; Diagnosis; Point-of-care testing; SARS-CoV-2.
 
Back
Top Bottom