10/29/2022 0 Comments Comprehensive meta analysis v2 keygen![]() ![]() The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Ĭompeting interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: CMD is a member of the Editorial Board of PLOS Medicine.īronchoalveolar lavage and throat wash CI, Further, this project was funded by United Kingdom (UK) aid from the British people (grant number: 300341-102 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCMO), former UK Department of International Development (DFID) and supported by a grant from the World Health Organization (WHO no grant number ) and a grant from Unitaid (grant number: 2019-32-FIND MDR ) to Foundation of New Diagnostics (FIND JAS, SC, SO, AM). įunding: The study was supported by the Ministry of Science, Research and Arts of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany (no grant number ) and internal funds from the Heidelberg University Hospital (no grant number ) to CMD. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.ĭata Availability: All raw data is publicly available under. Received: FebruAccepted: JPublished: August 12, 2021Ĭopyright: © 2021 Brümmer et al. PLoS Med 18(8):Īcademic Editor: Amitabh Bipin Suthar, PLOS Medicine Editorial Board, UNITED STATES (2021) Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis. Our analysis was limited by the included studies’ heterogeneity in design and reporting.Ĭitation: Brümmer LE, Katzenschlager S, Gaeddert M, Erdmann C, Schmitz S, Bota M, et al. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). ![]() Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |