Your browser doesn't support javascript.
False-positivity results in rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2: an umbrella review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews.
Yang, Yu-Pei; Huang, Li-Li; Pan, Shuang-Jun; Xu, Dan; Jiesisibieke, Zhu Liduzi; Tung, Tao-Hsin.
  • Yang YP; Department of Hematology, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province Affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Linhai, Zhejiang, China.
  • Huang LL; Department of Emergency, Taizhou First People's Hospital, Huangyan, Zhejiang, China.
  • Pan SJ; Department of Neurosurgery, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province Affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Linhai, Zhejiang, China.
  • Xu D; Department of Nursing, Taizhou First People's Hospital, Huangyan, Zhejiang, China.
  • Jiesisibieke ZL; School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, Hong Kong.
  • Tung TH; Medicine Center, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province Affiliated to Wenzhou Medical UniversityEvidence-based, Linhai, Zhejiang, China.
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther ; 20(7): 1005-1013, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1806119
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

The rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) for SARS-CoV-2 infection could contribute to the clinical and public health strategies for managing COVID-19. This umbrella review aimed to explore the accuracy and sensitivity of RADTs for SARS-CoV-2 by assessing the incidence of false positivity associated with them. AREAS COVERED Meta-analyses and systematic reviews on the sensitivity and specificity of commercially available RADTs with data on false-positive results were identified by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception to 31 March 2022. All meta-analyses and systematic reviews on the sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen tests were included. Data on the author and year, included studies, index tests, sample size, false negatives, false positives, and study quality based on AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) rating were extracted from the included meta-analyses and systematic reviews. EXPERT OPINION The false positivity rates in the included studies ranged from 0.0% - 4.0%. This study summarizes the available evidence on the incidence of false positivity in RADTs and shows it is less than 4.0%. Therefore, our findings imply that RADTs can be an appropriate, economic, and rapid detection method for mass screening of COVID-19.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Type of study: Diagnostic study / Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther Journal subject: Communicable Diseases Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: 14787210.2022.2070152

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Type of study: Diagnostic study / Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther Journal subject: Communicable Diseases Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: 14787210.2022.2070152