Abstract:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) and the resulting COVID‐19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify or rule out current infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Point‐of‐care antigen and molecular tests to detect current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection have the potential to allow earlier detection and isolation of confirmed cases compared to laboratory‐based diagnostic methods, with the aim of reducing household and community transmission. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. On 25 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We included studies of people with suspected current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, known to have, or not to have SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point‐of‐care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results available within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) tests and established clinical diagnostic criteria). Two review authors independently screened studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. One review author independently extracted study characteristics, which were checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently extracted 2x2 contingency table data and assessed risk of bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS‐2 tool. We present sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each test using paired forest plots. We pooled data using the bivariate hierarchical model separately for antigen and molecular‐based tests, with simplifications when few studies were available. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We included 22 publications reporting on a total of 18 study cohorts with 3198 unique samples, of which 1775 had confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Ten studies took place in North America, two in South America, four in Europe, one in China and one was conducted internationally. We identified data for eight commercial tests (four antigen and four molecular) and one in‐house antigen test. Five of the studies included were only available as preprints. We did not find any studies at low risk of bias for all quality domains and had concerns about applicability of results across all studies. We judged patient selection to be at high risk of bias in 50% of the studies because of deliberate over‐sampling of samples with confirmed COVID‐19 infection and unclear in seven out of 18 studies because of poor reporting. Sixteen (89%) studies used only a single, negative RT‐PCR to confirm the absence of COVID‐19 infection, risking missing infection. There was a lack of information on blinding of index test (n = 11), and around participant exclusions from analyses (n = 10). We did not observe differences in methodological quality between antigen and molecular test evaluations. Antigen tests Sensitivity varied considerably across studies (from 0% to 94%): the average sensitivity was 56.2% (95% CI 29.5 to 79.8%) and average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.1% to 99.9%; based on 8 evaluations in 5 studies on 943 samples). Data for individual antigen tests were limited with no more than two studies for any test. Rapid molecular assays Sensitivity showed less variation compared to antigen tests (from 68% to 100%), average sensitivity was 95.2% (95% CI 86.7% to 98.3%) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.5%) based on 13 evaluations in 11 studies of on 2255 samples. Predicted values based on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people with suspected COVID‐19 infection (with a prevalence of 10%) result in 105 positive test results including 10 false positives (positive predictive value 90%), and 895 negative results including 5 false negatives (negative predictive value 99%). Individual tests We calculated pooled results of individual tests for ID NOW (Abbott Laboratories) (5 evaluations) and Xpert Xpress (Cepheid Inc) (6 evaluations). Summary sensitivity for the Xpert Xpress assay (99.4%, 95% CI 98.0% to 99.8%) was 22.6 (95% CI 18.8 to 26.3) percentage points higher than t -Abstract Truncated-

Reducing Diagnostic Bias Through Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Testing for SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A/B, and RSV

Analysis of factors associated early diagnosis in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Influenza and RSV incidence during COVID-19 pandemic—an observational study from in-hospital point-of-care testing

Clinical analysis on diagnostic accuracy of Bosch Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test and evaluation of cycle threshold at admission for COVID-19 risk assessment

Use of RT-PCR in conjunction with a respiratory pathogen assay to concurrently determine the prevalence of bacteria and SARS-CoV-2 from the nasopharynx of outpatients

Unveiling the dynamics of respiratory infections revealed by multiplex PCR testing during the COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan, 2020-2023

Relative Contribution of Diagnostic Testing to the Diagnosis of Respiratory Syncytial Virus in Hospitalized Adults in the United States

An Algorithmic Approach to the Use of Rapid Molecular Diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2, Influenza Viruses, and Other Respiratory Pathogens During an Unprecedented Respiratory Season

Clinical Outcomes of Rapid Respiratory Virus Testing in Emergency Departments

Real-world use of multiplex point-of-care molecular testing or laboratory-based molecular testing for influenza-like illness in a 2021 to 2022 US outpatient sample

Respiratory viral infections are underdiagnosed in patients with suspected sepsis

Evaluation of Three Multiplex Real-time Reverse Transcription PCR Assays for Simultaneous Detection of SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A/B, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus in Nasopharyngeal Swabs

The epidemiology of pediatric outpatient acute respiratory tract infections in the US: a multi-facility analysis of multiplex PCR testing from 2018 to 2023

Clinical impact of rapid molecular diagnostic tests in patients presenting with viral respiratory symptoms: A systematic literature review

Comparative evaluation of RT-PCR and antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection: performance, variant specificity, and clinical implications

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

To PCR or not? The impact of shifting policy from PCR to rapid antigen tests to diagnose COVID-19 during the omicron epidemic: a nationwide surveillance study

Clinical sensitivity and interpretation of PCR and serological COVID‐19 diagnostics for patients presenting to the hospital

Diagnostic performance of multiplex lateral flow tests in ambulatory patients with acute respiratory illness

Discrepant serological findings in SARS‐CoV‐2 PCR‐negative hospitalized patients with fever and acute respiratory symptoms during the pandemic