False-positivity results in rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2: an umbrella review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews

Yang, Yupei; Huang, Li-Li; Pan, Shuang-Jun; Xu, Dianguo; Jiesisibieke, Zhu Liduzi; Tung, Tao‐Hsin

doi:10.1080/14787210.2022.2070152

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…False positive tests are a major challenge with SARS-CoV-2 RATs ( Gans et al, 2022 ; Yang et al, 2022 ) and may lead to unnecessary additional burden on the healthcare system. This study analyzed true/false positive RATs in detail.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical practice of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant: A single-center study in China

Xu¹,

Ying²,

Cai³

et al. 2022

Virologica Sinica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical practice of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant: A single-center study in China

Xu¹,

Ying²,

Cai³

et al. 2022

Virologica Sinica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It should also be noted the positive predictive value could be low in places where the prevalence is low [ 25 ]. Previous studies have, however, showed that RAT had a low false-positive rate [ 26 ] but an adequate sensitivity to identify asymptomatic and high–viral load cases [ 27 ]. The 1.03% positive rate found in this study was similar to the estimated daily point-prevalence on the last day of the campaign (0.76%, 95% CI 0.32-1.56%) [ 28 ], demonstrating the reliability of the results from this population-based survey.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mass Screening of SARS-CoV-2 With Rapid Antigen Tests in a Receding Omicron Wave: Population-Based Survey for Epidemiologic Evaluation

Kwan¹,

Wong²,

Chan³

et al. 2022

JMIR Public Health Surveill

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The COVID-19 Omicron BA.2 epidemic wave in Hong Kong peaked in the first quarter of 2022. Following the implementation of stringent public health measures, the daily number of reported cases fell from over 50,000 to below 2000. Although outbreaks steadily receded, the government rolled out a 3-day “voluntary universal rapid testing” campaign to invite all citizens to self-perform a rapid antigen test (RAT) daily to identify undetected prevalent infections. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the uptake and results of RAT mass screening to estimate the population’s residual epidemic burden and assess the risk of further transmission. Methods A cross-sectional study comprising an open web-based population-based survey was conducted a week after the RAT campaign. Participants were asked to report their COVID-19 vaccination and infection history and the RAT performance and test result during the period. They were also invited to report their coliving individuals’ test performance and results. Reasons for nonuptake were enquired. Testing and positive rates were age-adjusted. Determinants of undergoing RAT were identified using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models. Results In total, particulars from 21,769 individuals were reported by 8338 participants. The overall age-adjusted testing rate was 74.94% (95% CI 73.71%-76.18%), with over 80% of participants in the age groups between 45-84 years having self-performed RAT during the campaign period. After age-adjustment, 1.03% (95% CI 0.86%-1.21%) of participants tested positive. The positive rates in the age groups between 20-29 years and >84 years exceeded 2%. Taking into account the positive rate and 5819 reported cases during the period, the cases identified in the campaign might account for 7.65% (95% CI 6.47%-9.14%) of all infections. Testers were more likely to be female, older, not previously diagnosed with COVID-19, and have received COVID-19 vaccination. Adjusting for the number of household members, those living with a child aged <12 years and whose household members were also tested were more likely to have self-performed an RAT. Main reasons for not performing an RAT included the absence of symptoms (598/1108, 53.97%), disbelief of the appropriateness of the campaign as an antiepidemic measure (355/1108, 32.04%), and a recent COVID-19 diagnosis (332/1108, 29.96%). Conclusions The residual population burden remained substantial in spite of the clear evidence of a receding epidemic wave. Despite caution in generalization to the Hong Kong population, the high participation rate in mass screening indicated that the voluntary RAT was well accepted, making it a feasible option for implementation as a complementary means of public health surveillance.

show abstract

“…Yanlış pozitiflik oranı %1,7 olarak saptanmıştır. SARS-CoV-2 için hızlı antijen testlerinde yanlış pozitiflik sonuçlarını araştıran bir metaanalizde yanlış pozitiflik oranlarının %0,0-%4,0 arasında değiştiği raporlanmıştır [33].…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Evaluation of rapid antigen test (ExacTest™ COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test) results when omicron variant is common

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The present study aims to compare the results of the COVID-19 rapid antigen test (ExacTest™ COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test) and real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test in samples of people suspected of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Materials and Methods: Among the samples submitted between January 2022 and March 2022 with suspicion of COVID-19, 299 samples subject to simultaneous COVID-19 RADT (Rapid Antigen Detection Test) and RT-PCR were evaluated retrospectively. The Real-Time PCR test was studied with the DS CORONEX COVID-19 Multiplex Real time-qPCR Test Kit (DS Nano and Biotechnology Product Tracing and Tracking Co., Turkey) and the rapid antigen test was studied by the immunochromatographic method with ExacTest™ COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test Cassette kit (General Diagnostica inc., California, USA). Ag-RDT test results were evaluated with the fluorescent immunoassay analyzer (FIATEST Analyzer, Hangzhou Alltest Biotech Co., Ltd. China). Results: RT-PCR test was positive in 53 (17.7%) samples. The RADT's sensitivity was found 88.7 (95% Cl 77.0-95.7), specificity 98.0 (95% Cl 95.3-99.3), positive predictive value 90.4 (95% Cl 79.7-95.8), negative predictive value 97.6 (95% Cl 95.0-98.8), and accuracy 96.3 (95% Cl 93.5-98.2). Sample sensitivities of patients under and over 18 years of age have been identified as 75 (95% Cl 19.4-99.4) and 89.8 (95% Cl 77.8-96.6), respectively. The sensitivity of patients with and without symptoms was 95.5 (95% Cl 77.2-99.9) and 83.9 (95% Cl 66.3-94.6), respectively. For samples with a cycle threshold (Ct) of

show abstract

False-positivity results in rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2: an umbrella review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews

Cited by 8 publications

References 47 publications

Clinical practice of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant: A single-center study in China

Clinical practice of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant: A single-center study in China

Mass Screening of SARS-CoV-2 With Rapid Antigen Tests in a Receding Omicron Wave: Population-Based Survey for Epidemiologic Evaluation

Evaluation of rapid antigen test (ExacTest™ COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test) results when omicron variant is common

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About