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

Diagnostic Utility of Antigen Detection Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Covid- 19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Mina Ebrahimi, Narges Nazari Harmooshi, View ORCID ProfileFakher Rahim
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.02.21254714
Mina Ebrahimi
1Thalassemia and Hemoglobinopathy Research Centre, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Narges Nazari Harmooshi
2Epidemiology, Deputy of Health, Health Centre, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fakher Rahim
1Thalassemia and Hemoglobinopathy Research Centre, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Fakher Rahim
  • For correspondence: Bioinfo2003@gmail.com
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Early detection of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection to improve disease management, becomes the greatest challenge. Despite high sensitivity of RT-PCR, not only it was reported that 20-67% of infected patients have false negative results. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used as a point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 detection in both pharyngeal and blood specimens. To be less time-consuming, not seem so costly, and requiring no special training make it more favorable, but the low sensitivity is the main limitation. Several reports indicated rapid test of blood and pharyngeal samples has the same sensitivity as the RT-PCR, but some reports have lower sensitivity especial in asymptomatic patients.

Methods In the present survey, we investigate the eligible studies for sensitivity and specificity of rapid tests and explore the factors that influence the result to help better diagnose COVID-19 infection. 20 studies met the inclusion criteria, which impose 33 different tests.

Results Our findings showed, type of sample, type of assay, time of sampling, and load of virus influence on sensitivity of RDTs.

Conclusion This research extends our knowledge of how to improve the sensitivity of RDTs to better diagnose of infected patients to address the controlling COVID-19 pandemic.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

No funding

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:

Not applicable.

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 presented in the manuscript.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted April 05, 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.
Diagnostic Utility of Antigen Detection Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Covid- 19: A 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
Diagnostic Utility of Antigen Detection Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Covid- 19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Mina Ebrahimi, Narges Nazari Harmooshi, Fakher Rahim
medRxiv 2021.04.02.21254714; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.02.21254714
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Diagnostic Utility of Antigen Detection Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Covid- 19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Mina Ebrahimi, Narges Nazari Harmooshi, Fakher Rahim
medRxiv 2021.04.02.21254714; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.02.21254714

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 (280)
  • Allergy and Immunology (579)
  • Anesthesia (139)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1946)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (252)
  • Dermatology (184)
  • Emergency Medicine (333)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (699)
  • Epidemiology (11102)
  • Forensic Medicine (8)
  • Gastroenterology (624)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (3168)
  • Geriatric Medicine (308)
  • Health Economics (561)
  • Health Informatics (2042)
  • Health Policy (863)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (782)
  • Hematology (310)
  • HIV/AIDS (682)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (12720)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (707)
  • Medical Education (317)
  • Medical Ethics (92)
  • Nephrology (334)
  • Neurology (2986)
  • Nursing (164)
  • Nutrition (463)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (589)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (614)
  • Oncology (1552)
  • Ophthalmology (477)
  • Orthopedics (185)
  • Otolaryngology (266)
  • Pain Medicine (202)
  • Palliative Medicine (57)
  • Pathology (403)
  • Pediatrics (912)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (381)
  • Primary Care Research (355)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2784)
  • Public and Global Health (5591)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1093)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (634)
  • Respiratory Medicine (759)
  • Rheumatology (338)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (311)
  • Sports Medicine (289)
  • Surgery (343)
  • Toxicology (48)
  • Transplantation (159)
  • Urology (132)