Evaluation of the Boson rapid Ag test vs RT–PCR for use as a self–testing platform

Leventopoulos, Michail; Michou, Vassiliki; Papadimitropoulos, Miltiadis; Vourva, Evangelia; Manias, Nikolaos George; Kavvadas, Harilaos Panagiotis; Nikolopoulos, Dimitris; Tsilivakos, Vassilis; Georgoulias, Georgios

doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2022.115786

Cited by 11 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When a test was performed in the first week of symptoms, the sensitivity increased significantly to 81%, whereas when it was performed during the second week, it decreased again to 54%. This meta-analysis also lags behind ours in terms of its publication date because four of the studies [ 14 , 25 , 35 , 38 ] we have included were published after its publication. Additionally, this meta-analysis, as with the previous one, examines the diagnostic accuracy of all types of rapid antigen tests in contrast with ours.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…This difference may be due to any of the factors affecting sensitivity. This meta-analysis lags behind ours in terms of date, as it was published in August 2021 and 16 of the studies [ 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 ] we have included were published after the publication of the mentioned meta-analysis. Moreover, the meta-analysis by Brümmer et al concerns all types of rapid antigen tests (using nasal samples, nasopharyngeal samples and saliva samples) in contrast with ours, which calculates the diagnostic accuracy with nasal samples.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Furthermore, most of the studies mentioned in this meta-analysis [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 ] also used nasopharyngeal samples. Rapid antigen tests using nasopharyngeal samples are considered more reliable compared with nasal swab use due to the higher concentration of the virus [ 47 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Sensitivity percentages of included studies. The term sensitivity (true positive rate) refers to the probability of a positive test, conditioned on it truly being positive [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. …”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The term specificity (true negative rate) refers to the probability of a negative test, conditioned on it truly being negative. Patriquin et al’s specificity was not estimable [ 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ].…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Diagnostic Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Nasal Rapid Antigen Self-Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Karlafti

Tsavdaris

Kotzakioulafi

et al. 2023

Life

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a disease that quickly spread into a pandemic. As such, management of the COVID-19 pandemic is deemed necessary, and it can be achieved by using reliable diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2. The gold standard for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is a molecular detection test using the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction technique (rt-PCR), which is characterized by various disadvantages in contrast with the self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests that produce results faster, have lower costs and do not require specialized personnel. Therefore, the usefulness of self-taken rapid antigen tests is indisputable in disease management, facilitating both the health system and the examinees. Our systematic review aims to access the diagnostic accuracy of the self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests. Methods: This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. All the studies included in this systematic review were found after searching the two databases, Scopus and PubΜed. All but original articles were excluded from this systematic review, while all the studies concerning self-taken rapid antigen tests with a nasal sample and using rt-PCR as a reference test were included. Meta-analysis results and plots were obtained using RevMan software and the MetaDTA website. Results: All 22 studies included in this meta-analysis demonstrated a specificity of self-taken rapid antigen tests greater than 98%, which exceeds the minimum required yield for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, according to the WHO. Notwithstanding, the sensitivity varies (from 40% to 98.7%), which makes them in some cases unsuitable for the diagnosis of positive cases. In the majority of the studies, the minimum required performance set by the WHO was achieved, which is 80% compared with rt-PCR tests. The pooled sensitivity of self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests was calculated as 91.1% and the pooled specificity was 99.5%. Conclusions: In conclusion, self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests have many advantages over rt-PCR tests, such as those related to the rapid reading of the results and their low cost. They also have considerable specificity and some self-taken rapid antigen test kits also have remarkable sensitivity. Consequently, self-taken rapid antigen tests have a wide range of utility but are not able to completely replace rt-PCR tests.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Diagnostic Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Nasal Rapid Antigen Self-Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Karlafti

Tsavdaris

Kotzakioulafi

et al. 2023

Life

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Performance characteristics of the boson rapid SARS–cov–2 antigen test card vs RT–PCR: Cross–reactivity and emerging variants

Leventopoulos¹,

Michou²,

Kyprianidou³

et al. 2023

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling with molecular and professional-use tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Katzenschlager,

Brümmer,

Schmitz

et al. 2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-testing is an effective tool to bridge the testing gap for several infectious diseases; however, its performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) has not been systematically reviewed. This study aimed to inform WHO guidelines by evaluating the accuracy of COVID-19 self-testing and self-sampling coupled with professional Ag-RDT conduct and interpretation. Articles on this topic were searched until November 7th, 2022. Concordance between self-testing/self-sampling and fully professional-use Ag-RDTs was assessed using Cohen’s kappa. Bivariate meta-analysis yielded pooled performance estimates. Quality and certainty of evidence were evaluated using QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools. Among 43 studies included, twelve reported on self-testing, and 31 assessed self-sampling only. Around 49.6% showed low risk of bias. Overall concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs was high (kappa 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88–0.94]). Comparing self-testing/self-sampling to molecular testing, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 70.5% (95% CI 64.3–76.0) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1–99.6), respectively. Higher sensitivity (i.e., 93.6% [95% CI 90.4–96.8] for Ct < 25) was estimated in subgroups with higher viral loads using Ct values as a proxy. Despite high heterogeneity among studies, COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling exhibits high concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs. This suggests that self-testing/self-sampling can be offered as part of COVID-19 testing strategies.Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021250706.

show abstract

Evaluation of the Boson rapid Ag test vs RT–PCR for use as a self–testing platform

Cited by 11 publications

References 38 publications

The Diagnostic Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Nasal Rapid Antigen Self-Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The Diagnostic Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Nasal Rapid Antigen Self-Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Performance characteristics of the boson rapid SARS–cov–2 antigen test card vs RT–PCR: Cross–reactivity and emerging variants

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling with molecular and professional-use tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About