IntroductionReverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 is time-consuming and sometimes not feasible in developing nations. Rapid antigen test (RAT) could decrease the load of diagnosis. However, the efficacy of RAT is yet to be investigated comprehensively. Thus, the current systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RAT against RT-PCR methods as the reference standard.MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE/Pubmed and Embase databases for the relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Diagnostic accuracy measures [i.e., sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and the area under the curve (AUC)] were pooled with a random-effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with Meta-DiSc (Version 1.4, Cochrane Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain).ResultsAfter reviewing retrieved records, we identified 60 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the rapid antigen tests against the reference test (the real-time PCR) were 69% (95% CI: 68–70) and 99% (95% CI: 99–99). The PLR, NLR, DOR and the AUC estimates were found to be 72 (95% CI: 44–119), 0.30 (95% CI: 0.26–0.36), 316 (95% CI: 167–590) and 97%, respectively.ConclusionThe present study indicated that using RAT kits is primarily recommended for the early detection of patients suspected of having COVID-19, particularly in countries with limited resources and laboratory equipment. However, the negative RAT samples may need to be confirmed using molecular tests, mainly when the symptoms of COVID-19 are present.

No abstract

No abstract

Conventional culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST) of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to pyrazinamide (PZA) is time-consuming and difficult to perform. The current systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Wayne assay against culture-based DSTs as the reference standard. We searched the MEDLINE/Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for the relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Diagnostic accuracy measures (i.e., sensitivity and specificity) were pooled with a random-effects model. Statistical analyses were performed with STATA (version 14, Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA), RevMan (version 5.3; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, the Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark), and Meta-DiSc (version 1.4, Cochrane Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain). A total of 31 articles comprising data for 2457 isolates of M. tuberculosis were included in the final analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the Wayne assay against all reference tests (the combination of BACTEC MGIT 960, BACTEC 460, and proportion method) were 86.6% (95% CI: 84.3-88.7) and 96.0% (95% CI: 94.8-97). The positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC) estimates were found to be 17.6 (95% CI: 10.5-29.3), 0.11 (95% CI: 0.06-0.20), 164 (95% CI: 83-320) and 97%, respectively. Deek's test result indicated no evidence for publication bias (P > 0.05). Although the current study shows that the Wayne test is sensitive and specific for detecting PZA resistance, it may be used in combination with conventional DSTs to diagnose PZA resistance accurately.

No abstract