Abstract

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused the global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Rapid identification and isolation of infectious patients are critical methods to block COVID-19 transmission. Antigen tests can contribute to prompt identification of infectious individuals. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2. We conducted a literature search in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Biomed Central databases. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 in community participants were included. Only English-language articles were reviewed. We included eligible studies that provided available data to construct a 2 × 2 table on a per-patient basis. Overall sensitivity and specificity for antigen tests were generated using a bivariate random-effects model. Eighteen studies with 34,865 participants were retrieved. The meta-analysis for SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests generated a pooled sensitivity of 0.82 and a pooled specificity of 1.00. A subgroup analysis of ten studies that reported outcomes for 5629 symptomatic participants generated a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 and a pooled specificity of 1.00. Antigen tests might have higher sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients in the community and may be an effective tool to identify patients to be quarantined to prevent further SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Original languageEnglish
Article number11451
JournalInternational journal of environmental research and public health
Volume18
Issue number21
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 1 2021

Keywords

  • Antigen test
  • COVID-19
  • Meta-analysis
  • SARS-CoV-2
  • Sensitivity and specificity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pollution
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Diagnostic accuracy of sars-cov-2 antigen tests for community transmission screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this