Background Nonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 also decreased the spread of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza. Viral diagnostic testing in patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI) is a necessary tool for patient management; therefore, sensitive and specific tests are required. This scoping literature review aimed to summarize the study characteristics of commercially available sample-to-answer RSV tests. Content PubMed and Embase were queried for studies reporting on the diagnostic performance of tests for RSV in patients with RTI (published January 2005–January 2021). Information on study design, patient and setting characteristics, and published diagnostic performance of RSV tests were extracted from 77 studies that met predefined inclusion criteria. A literature gap was identified for studies of RSV tests conducted in adult-only populations (5.3% of total subrecords) and in outpatient (7.5%) or household (0.8%) settings. Overall, RSV tests with analytical time >30 min had higher published sensitivity (62.5%–100%) vs RSV tests with analytical time ≤30 min (25.7%–100%); this sensitivity range could be partially attributed to the different modalities (antigen vs molecular) used. Molecular-based rapid RSV tests had higher published sensitivity (66.7%–100%) and specificity (94.3%–100%) than antigen-based RSV tests (sensitivity: 25.7%–100%; specificity:80.3%–100%). Summary This scoping review reveals a paucity of literature on studies of RSV tests in specific populations and settings, highlighting the need for further assessments. Considering the implications of these results in the current pandemic landscape, the authors preliminarily suggest adopting molecular-based RSV tests for first-line use in these settings.

Background: Non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 also decreased the spread of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza. Viral diagnostic testing in patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI) is a necessary tool for patient management; therefore, sensitive and specific tests are required. This scoping literature review evaluated the analytical validity of commercially available sample-to-answer RSV diagnostic tests in different contexts. Content: PubMed and Embase were queried for studies reporting on the analytical validity of tests for RSV in patients with RTI (published January 2005–January 2021). Sensitivity and specificity of RSV tests and information on study design, patient, and setting characteristics were extracted from 77 studies that met predefined inclusion criteria. A literature gap was identified for studies of RSV tests conducted in adult-only populations (5.3% of total sub-records), and in outpatient (7.5%) or household (0.8%) settings. Overall, RSV tests with analytical time >30 min had higher sensitivity (62.5–100%) versus RSV tests with analytical time ≤30 min (25.7–100%), this sensitivity range could be partially attributed to the different modalities (antigen versus molecular) used. Molecular-based rapid RSV tests had higher sensitivity (66.7–100%) and specificity (94.3–100%) than antigen-based RSV tests (25.7–100% and 80.3–100%). Summary: Molecular-based RSV tests should be considered for first-line use when possible, given their high sensitivity and specificity and that adults with RTI typically have low viral load, necessitating a highly sensitive test. This review benefits healthcare professionals by summarizing the diagnostic accuracy data available for commercially available RSV tests.

COVID-19 At-Home Test kits may be exposed to extreme temperatures in transit, which may impact test sensitivity and specificity. We investigated assay ability to identify SARS-CoV-2 antigen after 24 h to 2 weeks in frozen, refrigerated, room temperature, warm, or excessive heat conditions.