학술논문
Comparing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling with molecular and professional-use tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Document Type
article
Author
Stephan Katzenschlager; Lukas E. Brümmer; Stephani Schmitz; Hannah Tolle; Katharina Manten; Mary Gaeddert; Christian Erdmann; Andreas Lindner; Frank Tobian; Maurizio Grilli; Nira R. Pollock; Aurélien Macé; Berra Erkosar; Sergio Carmona; Stefano Ongarello; Cheryl C. Johnson; Jilian A. Sacks; Claudia M. Denkinger; Seda Yerlikaya
Source
Scientific Reports, Vol 13, Iss 1, Pp 1-15 (2023)
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
2045-2322
Abstract
Abstract Self-testing is an effective tool to bridge the testing gap for several infectious diseases; however, its performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) has not been systematically reviewed. This study aimed to inform WHO guidelines by evaluating the accuracy of COVID-19 self-testing and self-sampling coupled with professional Ag-RDT conduct and interpretation. Articles on this topic were searched until November 7th, 2022. Concordance between self-testing/self-sampling and fully professional-use Ag-RDTs was assessed using Cohen’s kappa. Bivariate meta-analysis yielded pooled performance estimates. Quality and certainty of evidence were evaluated using QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools. Among 43 studies included, twelve reported on self-testing, and 31 assessed self-sampling only. Around 49.6% showed low risk of bias. Overall concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs was high (kappa 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88–0.94]). Comparing self-testing/self-sampling to molecular testing, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 70.5% (95% CI 64.3–76.0) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1–99.6), respectively. Higher sensitivity (i.e., 93.6% [95% CI 90.4–96.8] for Ct