COVID-19 rapid antigen tests approved for self-testing in Australia: published diagnostic test accuracy studies and manufacturer-supplied information. A systematic review

被引:5
|
作者
Bell, Katy J. L. [1 ]
Li, Yuyang [1 ]
Medcalf, Ellie [1 ]
Ackermann, Deonna [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, Sch Publ Hlth, Sydney, NSW, Australia
关键词
COVID-19; Diagnostic tests and procedures; Public health; Evidence-based medicine; Systematic review; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.5694/mja2.52151
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
ObjectivesTo review evaluations of the diagnostic accuracy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rapid antigen tests (RATs) approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for self-testing by ambulatory people in Australia; to compare these estimates with values reported by test manufacturers.Study designSystematic review of publications in any language that reported cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort studies in which the participants were ambulatory people in the community or health care workers in hospitals in whom severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was suspected, and the results of testing self-collected biological samples with a TGA-approved COVID-19 RAT were compared with those of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) were checked and compared with manufacturer estimates published on the TGA website.Data sourcesPublications (to 1 September 2022) identified in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the World Health Organization COVID-19 research database. Information on manufacturer diagnostic accuracy evaluations was obtained from the TGA website.Data synthesisTwelve publications that reported a total of eighteen evaluations of eight RATs approved by the TGA for self-testing (manufacturers: All Test, Roche, Flowflex, MP Biomedicals, Clungene, Panbio, V-Chek, Whistling) were identified. Five studies were undertaken in the Netherlands, two each in Germany and the United States, and one each in Denmark, Belgium, and Canada; test sample collection was unsupervised in twelve studies, and supervised by health care workers or researchers in six. Estimated sensitivity with unsupervised sample collection ranged from 20.9% (MP Biomedicals) to 74.3% (Roche), and with supervised collection from 7.7% (V-Chek) to 84.4% (Panbio); the estimates were between 8.2 and 88 percentage points lower than the values reported by the manufacturers. Test specificity was high for all RATs (97.9-100%).ConclusionsThe risk of false negative results when using COVID-19 RATs for self-testing may be considerably higher than apparent in manufacturer reports on the TGA website, with implications for the reliability of these tests for ruling out infection.
引用
收藏
页码:551 / 558
页数:8
相关论文
共 22 条
  • [1] Evaluation of COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing in Lesotho and Zambia
    Bresser, Moniek
    Erhardt, Rahel Milena
    Shanaube, Kwame
    Simwinga, Musonda
    Mahlatsi, Palesa Agnes
    Belus, Jennifer
    Schaap, Albertus
    Amstutz, Alain
    Gachie, Thomas
    Glass, Tracy Renee
    Kangololo, Bxyn
    'Mota, John
    Floyd, Sian
    Katende, Bulemba
    Klinkenberg, Eveline
    Ayles, Helen
    Reither, Klaus
    Ruperez, Maria
    PLOS ONE, 2024, 19 (02):
  • [2] A Call to Improve Usability, Accuracy, and Equity of Self-Testing for COVID-19 and Other Rapid Diagnostic Tests
    Drain, Paul K.
    Adams, Alexandra K.
    Kessler, Larry
    Thompson, Matthew
    HEALTH EQUITY, 2023, 7 (01) : 731 - 734
  • [3] Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 compared to the viral genetic test in adults: a systematic review protocol
    DeArmond, Megan
    Feliciano, Shelby
    Hirabayashi, Ellyn
    Duus, Karen M.
    Else, Terry A.
    Stone, Amy E. L.
    JBI EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS, 2021, 19 (05) : 1148 - 1156
  • [4] Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Detection: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis
    Arshadi, Maniya
    Fardsanei, Fatemeh
    Deihim, Behnaz
    Farshadzadeh, Zahra
    Nikkhahi, Farhad
    Khalili, Farima
    Sotgiu, Giovanni
    Bonjar, Amir Hashem Shahidi
    Centis, Rosella
    Migliori, Giovanni Battista
    Nasiri, Mohammad Javad
    Mirsaeidi, Mehdi
    FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2022, 9
  • [5] Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 compared to the viral genetic test in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Hirabayashi, Ellyn
    Mercado, Guadalupe
    Hull, Brandi
    Soin, Sabrina
    Koshy-Chenthittayil, Sherli
    Raman, Sarina
    Huang, Timothy
    Keerthisinghe, Chathushya
    Feliciano, Shelby
    Dongo, Andrew
    Kal, James
    Azizan, Azliyati
    Duus, Karen
    Else, Terry
    DeArmond, Megan
    Stone, Amy E. L.
    JBI EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS, 2024, 22 (10) : 1939 - 2002
  • [6] Diagnostic accuracy of thirteen COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid antigen self-tests with very high sensitivity approved for home use in Australia
    Shores, Edwin A.
    Berry, Jamie
    AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2022, 46 (05) : 722 - 723
  • [7] Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 antigen tests: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Wang, Yuan-Hung
    Wu, Chia-Chang
    Bai, Chyi-Huey
    Lu, Shou-Cheng
    Yang, Yi-Ping
    Lin, Yi-Ying
    Lai, Wei-Yi
    Lin, Tzu-Wei
    Jheng, Ying-Chun
    Lee, Ming-Cheng
    Chen, Cheng-Chieh
    JOURNAL OF THE CHINESE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2021, 84 (11) : 1028 - 1037
  • [8] Diagnostic utility of antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests for Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Somaye Ghasemi
    Narges Nazari Harmooshi
    Fakher Rahim
    Diagnostic Pathology, 17
  • [9] Diagnostic utility of antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests for Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Ghasemi, Somaye
    Harmooshi, Narges Nazari
    Rahim, Fakher
    DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY, 2022, 17 (01)
  • [10] 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
    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
    Scientific Reports, 13