Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

The accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis

View ORCID ProfileLukas E. Brümmer, View ORCID ProfileStephan Katzenschlager, View ORCID ProfileMary Gaeddert, Christian Erdmann, Stephani Schmitz, Marc Bota, Maurizio Grilli, Jan Larmann, Markus A. Weigand, View ORCID ProfileNira R. Pollock, View ORCID ProfileSergio Carmona, View ORCID ProfileStefano Ongarello, View ORCID ProfileJilian Sacks, View ORCID ProfileClaudia M. Denkinger
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.26.21252546
Lukas E. Brümmer
1Division of Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Lukas E. Brümmer
Stephan Katzenschlager
2Department of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Stephan Katzenschlager
Mary Gaeddert
1Division of Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Mary Gaeddert
Christian Erdmann
3FH Muenster University of Applied Sciences, Muenster, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephani Schmitz
1Division of Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marc Bota
4Agaplesion Bethesda Hospital, Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maurizio Grilli
5Library of the Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jan Larmann
2Department of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Markus A. Weigand
2Department of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nira R. Pollock
6Department of Laboratory Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nira R. Pollock
Sergio Carmona
7Foundation of Innovative New Diagnostics, FINDdx, Geneva, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Sergio Carmona
Stefano Ongarello
7Foundation of Innovative New Diagnostics, FINDdx, Geneva, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Stefano Ongarello
Jilian Sacks
7Foundation of Innovative New Diagnostics, FINDdx, Geneva, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jilian Sacks
Claudia M. Denkinger
1Division of Tropical Medicine, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Claudia M. Denkinger
  • For correspondence: Claudia.Denkinger@uni-heidelberg.de
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Background SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs.

Methods We registered the review on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix and bioRvix, FINDdx) for publications up until December 11th, 2020. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed and when more than four studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses ((1) performed con-form with manufacturer’s instructions for use (IFU) or not, (2) symptomatic vs. asymptomatic, (3) duration of symptoms less than seven days vs. more than seven days, (4) Ct-value <25 vs. <30 vs. ≥30, (5) by sample type)) and with meta-regression. We assessed study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS 2 assessment tool.

Results From a total of 11,715 articles, we extracted 98 analytical and clinical data sets. 74 clinical accuracy data sets were evaluated that included 31,202 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity was 73.8% (CI 68.6 to 78.5). If analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions using fresh upper respiratory swab samples, the sensitivity increased to 79.1% (95%CI 75.0 to 82.8). The SD Biosensor Standard Q and Abbott Panbio showed the highest sensitivity with 81.7% and 72.7%, respectively. The best Ag-RDT performance was found with nasopharyngeal sampling (77.3%, CI 72.0 to 81.9) in comparison to other sample types (e.g., anterior nasal or mid turbinate 63.5%, CI 49.5 to 75.5). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in higher sensitivity (87.5%, CI 86.0 to 89.1) compared to testing after one week (64.1%, CI 54.4 to 73.8). The tests performed markedly better on samples with lower Ct-values, i.e., <30 (87.9%, CI 86.7 to 88.8), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 30 (47.8%, CI 41.1 to 54.5). Bias concerns were raised across all data sets, and financial support from the manufacturer was re-ported in 28.2% of data sets.

Conclusion As Ag-RDTs detect most cases within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load, they can have high utility for screening purposes in the early phase of disease, and thus can be a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization of conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.

Summary In this living systematic review we analyzed 98 data sets for performance of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs compared to RT-PCR. Best-performing tests achieved a sensitivity of 81.7%. Highest sensitivity was found in patients within seven days of symptom onset when NP swabs were utilized.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

The study was supported by the Ministry of Science, Research and Arts of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany and internal funds from the Heidelberg University Hospital as well as grants from UK Department of International Development (DFID, recently replaced by FCMO), grants from World Health Organization (WHO), grants from Unitaid to Foundation of New Diagnostics (FIND). The corresponding author had access to all data at all time.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed. There were no IRB or ethics committee approvals required.

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data is available upon request.

  • ABBREVIATIONS

    Ag-RDT
    antigen rapid diagnostic test
    AN/MT
    anterior nasal or midturbinate
    AR
    Aruba
    BAL/TW
    bronchoalveolar lavage or throat wash
    CI
    confidence interval
    Ct-value
    cycle threshold value
    ER
    Emergency Room
    FINDdx
    Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics
    FP
    false positive
    FN
    false negative
    IFU
    instructions for use
    LRT
    lower respiratory tract
    N
    sample size
    NP
    nasopharyngeal
    OP
    oropharyngeal
    POC
    point of care
    PC
    professional-collected
    RT-PCR
    reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction
    SC
    self-collected
    TP
    true positive
    TR
    travelers
    TN
    true negative
    UT
    Utrecht
    VTM/UTM
    viral or universal transport medium
  • Copyright 
    The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license.
    Back to top
    PreviousNext
    Posted March 01, 2021.
    Download PDF

    Supplementary Material

    Data/Code
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

    NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    The accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis
    (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Share
    The accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis
    Lukas E. Brümmer, Stephan Katzenschlager, Mary Gaeddert, Christian Erdmann, Stephani Schmitz, Marc Bota, Maurizio Grilli, Jan Larmann, Markus A. Weigand, Nira R. Pollock, Sergio Carmona, Stefano Ongarello, Jilian Sacks, Claudia M. Denkinger
    medRxiv 2021.02.26.21252546; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.26.21252546
    Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
    Citation Tools
    The accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis
    Lukas E. Brümmer, Stephan Katzenschlager, Mary Gaeddert, Christian Erdmann, Stephani Schmitz, Marc Bota, Maurizio Grilli, Jan Larmann, Markus A. Weigand, Nira R. Pollock, Sergio Carmona, Stefano Ongarello, Jilian Sacks, Claudia M. Denkinger
    medRxiv 2021.02.26.21252546; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.26.21252546

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    Subject Area

    • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
    Subject Areas
    All Articles
    • Addiction Medicine (269)
    • Allergy and Immunology (549)
    • Anesthesia (134)
    • Cardiovascular Medicine (1747)
    • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (238)
    • Dermatology (172)
    • Emergency Medicine (310)
    • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (653)
    • Epidemiology (10779)
    • Forensic Medicine (8)
    • Gastroenterology (583)
    • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2933)
    • Geriatric Medicine (286)
    • Health Economics (531)
    • Health Informatics (1918)
    • Health Policy (833)
    • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (743)
    • Hematology (290)
    • HIV/AIDS (627)
    • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (12496)
    • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (684)
    • Medical Education (299)
    • Medical Ethics (86)
    • Nephrology (321)
    • Neurology (2780)
    • Nursing (150)
    • Nutrition (431)
    • Obstetrics and Gynecology (553)
    • Occupational and Environmental Health (597)
    • Oncology (1454)
    • Ophthalmology (440)
    • Orthopedics (172)
    • Otolaryngology (255)
    • Pain Medicine (190)
    • Palliative Medicine (56)
    • Pathology (379)
    • Pediatrics (864)
    • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (362)
    • Primary Care Research (333)
    • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2630)
    • Public and Global Health (5338)
    • Radiology and Imaging (1002)
    • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (594)
    • Respiratory Medicine (722)
    • Rheumatology (329)
    • Sexual and Reproductive Health (288)
    • Sports Medicine (278)
    • Surgery (327)
    • Toxicology (47)
    • Transplantation (149)
    • Urology (125)