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-

Comparative Diagnostic Utility of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen and Molecular Testing in a Community Setting

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests to Detect Symptomatic and Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers

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

Performance of rapid antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 variant diversity and correlation with viral culture positivity: implication for diagnostic development and future public health strategies

The Comparative Clinical Performance of Four SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Tests and Their Correlation to Infectivity In Vitro

Epidemiologic Characteristics Associated With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Antigen-Based Test Results, Real-Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) Cycle Threshold Values, Subgenomic RNA, and Viral Culture Results From University Testing

Clinical performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing in point of care usage in comparison to RT-qPCR

SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid detection tests: test performance during the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of COVID-19 vaccination

Development and Diagnosis Performance of IgM-Based Rapid Antigen Test for Early Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Large Cohort of Suspected COVID-19 Cases - USA, Poland, and Sweden, 2021-2022

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

Clinical Evaluation and Utilization of Multiple Molecular In Vitro Diagnostic Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2

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

Analytical sensitivity and efficiency comparisons of SARS-CoV-2 RT–qPCR primer–probe sets

Evaluation of Serological SARS-CoV-2 Lateral Flow Assays for Rapid Point of Care Testing

Comparative Performance of SARS-CoV-2 Detection Assays Using Seven Different Primer-Probe Sets and One Assay Kit

Analytical sensitivity and efficiency comparisons of SARS-COV-2 qRT-PCR primer-probe sets

Development and Clinical Performance of InteliSwab® COVID-19 Rapid Test: Evaluation of Antigen Test for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 and Analytical Sensitivity to Detect Variants of Concern Including Omicron and Subvariants

SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test sensitivity and viral load in newly symptomatic hospital employees in Berlin, Germany, December, 2020 to February, 2022: an observational study

Diagnostic performance of rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2: the COVid-19 AntiGen (COVAG) extension study

Evaluation of diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 infection using digital droplet polymerase chain reaction in individuals with or without COVID-19 symptoms