TY - JOUR
T1 - Performance of point-of care molecular and antigen-based tests for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Fragkou, Paraskevi C.
AU - Moschopoulos, Charalampos D.
AU - Dimopoulou, Dimitra
AU - Ong, David S.Y.
AU - Dimopoulou, Konstantina
AU - Nelson, Philipp P.
AU - Schweitzer, Valentijn A.
AU - Janocha, Hannah
AU - Karofylakis, Emmanouil
AU - Papathanasiou, Konstantinos A.
AU - Tsiordras, Sotirios
AU - De Angelis, Giulia
AU - Thölken, Clemens
AU - Sanguinetti, Maurizio
AU - Chung, Ho-Ryun
AU - Skevaki, Chrysanthi
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - Background: Molecular and antigen point-of-care tests (POCTs) have augmented our ability to rapidly identify and manage SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, their clinical performance varies among individual studies. Objectives: The evaluation of the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 cases compared with that of laboratory-based RT-PCR in real-life settings. Data sources: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 study register, and COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern. Study eligibility criteria: Peer-reviewed or preprint observational studies or randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of commercially available antigen and/or molecular POCTs for SARS-CoV-2, including multiplex PCR panels, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, with Emergency Use Authorization, and/or marked with Conformitè Europëenne from European Commission/European Union. Participants: Close contacts and/or patients with symptomatic and/or asymptomatic confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 infection of any age. Test/s: Molecular and/or antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 POCTs. Reference standard: Laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Assessment of risk of bias: Eligible studies were subjected to quality-control and risk-of-bias assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Methods of data synthesis: Summary sensitivities and specificities with their 95% CIs were estimated using a bivariate model. Subgroup analysis was performed when at least three studies informed the outcome. Results: A total of 123 eligible publications (97 and 26 studies assessing antigen-based and molecular POCTs, respectively) were retrieved from 4674 initial records. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for 13 molecular-based POCTs were 92.8% (95% CI, 88.9–95.4%) and 97.6% (95% CI, 96.6–98.3%), respectively. The sensitivity of antigen-based POCTs pooled from 138 individual evaluations was considerably lower than that of molecular POCTs; the pooled sensitivity and specificity rates were 70.6% (95% CI, 67.2–73.8%) and 98.9% (95% CI, 98.5–99.2%), respectively. Discussion: Further studies are needed to evaluate the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in underrepresented patient subgroups and different respiratory samples.
AB - Background: Molecular and antigen point-of-care tests (POCTs) have augmented our ability to rapidly identify and manage SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, their clinical performance varies among individual studies. Objectives: The evaluation of the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 cases compared with that of laboratory-based RT-PCR in real-life settings. Data sources: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 study register, and COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern. Study eligibility criteria: Peer-reviewed or preprint observational studies or randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of commercially available antigen and/or molecular POCTs for SARS-CoV-2, including multiplex PCR panels, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, with Emergency Use Authorization, and/or marked with Conformitè Europëenne from European Commission/European Union. Participants: Close contacts and/or patients with symptomatic and/or asymptomatic confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 infection of any age. Test/s: Molecular and/or antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 POCTs. Reference standard: Laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Assessment of risk of bias: Eligible studies were subjected to quality-control and risk-of-bias assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Methods of data synthesis: Summary sensitivities and specificities with their 95% CIs were estimated using a bivariate model. Subgroup analysis was performed when at least three studies informed the outcome. Results: A total of 123 eligible publications (97 and 26 studies assessing antigen-based and molecular POCTs, respectively) were retrieved from 4674 initial records. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for 13 molecular-based POCTs were 92.8% (95% CI, 88.9–95.4%) and 97.6% (95% CI, 96.6–98.3%), respectively. The sensitivity of antigen-based POCTs pooled from 138 individual evaluations was considerably lower than that of molecular POCTs; the pooled sensitivity and specificity rates were 70.6% (95% CI, 67.2–73.8%) and 98.9% (95% CI, 98.5–99.2%), respectively. Discussion: Further studies are needed to evaluate the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in underrepresented patient subgroups and different respiratory samples.
KW - Antigen-based test
KW - COVID-19
KW - Molecular test
KW - SARS-CoV-2
KW - Point-of-care test
KW - Rapid test
KW - Nucleic acid amplification test
KW - Antigen-based test
KW - COVID-19
KW - Molecular test
KW - SARS-CoV-2
KW - Point-of-care test
KW - Rapid test
KW - Nucleic acid amplification test
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10807/231814
U2 - 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.10.028
DO - 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.10.028
M3 - Article
SN - 1198-743X
VL - 29
SP - 291
EP - 301
JO - Clinical Microbiology and Infection
JF - Clinical Microbiology and Infection
ER -