Real-world clinical performance of commercial SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests in suspected COVID-19: A systematic meta-analysis of available data as of November 20, 2020
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
No abstract available
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.22.20248614: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Search strategy: We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and Derwent Drug File at Host “ProQuest” for any clinical performance studies using a commercial SARS-CoV-2 RAT for the following search terms: “COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2” OR “2019-nCoV” OR “coronavirus disease 2019” OR “novel corona virus” OR MESH Entries for Coronaviridae (incl. narrow terms) OR EMTREE Entries for Coronaviridae (incl. narrow terms) OR MESH/EMTREE Entries for “severe acute respiratory syndrome” (incl. narrow terms) AND “rapid antigen test*” OR “rapid antigen assay*” OR “standard Q covid-19 ag” AND “sensitivity” OR … SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.22.20248614: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Search strategy: We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and Derwent Drug File at Host “ProQuest” for any clinical performance studies using a commercial SARS-CoV-2 RAT for the following search terms: “COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2” OR “2019-nCoV” OR “coronavirus disease 2019” OR “novel corona virus” OR MESH Entries for Coronaviridae (incl. narrow terms) OR EMTREE Entries for Coronaviridae (incl. narrow terms) OR MESH/EMTREE Entries for “severe acute respiratory syndrome” (incl. narrow terms) AND “rapid antigen test*” OR “rapid antigen assay*” OR “standard Q covid-19 ag” AND “sensitivity” OR “specificity” OR “clinical performance” OR “positive agreement” OR “negative agreement” OR “concordance” OR “validation” OR “evaluation” OR “accuracy”. EMBASEsuggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)The meta-analysis of the performance results of the RATs against the RT-PCR methods was performed for the Roche/SDB, Abbott, and Coris RATs using the statistical software R. Abbottsuggested: (Abbott, RRID:SCR_010477)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
