Cargando…

A systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of lateral flow devices in the detection of SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND: Lateral flow devices (LFDs) are viral antigen tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 that produce a rapid result, are inexpensive and easy to operate. They have been advocated for use by the World Health Organisation to help control outbreaks and break the chain of transmission of COVID-1...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mistry, Dylan A., Wang, Jenny Y., Moeser, Mika-Erik, Starkey, Thomas, Lee, Lennard Y. W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8371300/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34407759
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06528-3
_version_ 1783739613408395264
author Mistry, Dylan A.
Wang, Jenny Y.
Moeser, Mika-Erik
Starkey, Thomas
Lee, Lennard Y. W.
author_facet Mistry, Dylan A.
Wang, Jenny Y.
Moeser, Mika-Erik
Starkey, Thomas
Lee, Lennard Y. W.
author_sort Mistry, Dylan A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Lateral flow devices (LFDs) are viral antigen tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 that produce a rapid result, are inexpensive and easy to operate. They have been advocated for use by the World Health Organisation to help control outbreaks and break the chain of transmission of COVID-19 infections. There are now several studies assessing their accuracy but as yet no systematic review. Our aims were to assess the sensitivity and specificity of LFDs in a systematic review and summarise the sensitivity and specificity of these tests. METHODS: A targeted search of Pubmed and Medxriv, using PRISMA principles, was conducted identifying clinical studies assessing the sensitivity and specificity of LFDs as their primary outcome compared to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Based on extracted data sensitivity and specificity was calculated for each study. Data was pooled based on manufacturer of LFD and split based on operator (self-swab or by trained professional) and sensitivity and specificity data were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-four papers were identified involving over 26,000 test results. Sensitivity from individual studies ranged from 37.7% (95% CI 30.6–45.5) to 99.2% (95% CI 95.5–99.9) and specificity from 92.4% (95% CI 87.5–95.5) to 100.0% (95% CI 99.7–100.0). Operation of the test by a trained professional or by the test subject with self-swabbing produced comparable results. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified that the performance of lateral flow devices is heterogeneous and dependent on the manufacturer. Some perform with high specificity but a great range of sensitivities were shown (38.32–99.19%). Test performance does not appear dependent on the operator. Potentially, LFDs could support the scaling up of mass testing to aid track and trace methodology and break the chain of transmission of COVID-19 with the additional benefit of providing individuals with the results in a much shorter time frame. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-021-06528-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8371300
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83713002021-08-18 A systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of lateral flow devices in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Mistry, Dylan A. Wang, Jenny Y. Moeser, Mika-Erik Starkey, Thomas Lee, Lennard Y. W. BMC Infect Dis Research BACKGROUND: Lateral flow devices (LFDs) are viral antigen tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 that produce a rapid result, are inexpensive and easy to operate. They have been advocated for use by the World Health Organisation to help control outbreaks and break the chain of transmission of COVID-19 infections. There are now several studies assessing their accuracy but as yet no systematic review. Our aims were to assess the sensitivity and specificity of LFDs in a systematic review and summarise the sensitivity and specificity of these tests. METHODS: A targeted search of Pubmed and Medxriv, using PRISMA principles, was conducted identifying clinical studies assessing the sensitivity and specificity of LFDs as their primary outcome compared to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Based on extracted data sensitivity and specificity was calculated for each study. Data was pooled based on manufacturer of LFD and split based on operator (self-swab or by trained professional) and sensitivity and specificity data were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-four papers were identified involving over 26,000 test results. Sensitivity from individual studies ranged from 37.7% (95% CI 30.6–45.5) to 99.2% (95% CI 95.5–99.9) and specificity from 92.4% (95% CI 87.5–95.5) to 100.0% (95% CI 99.7–100.0). Operation of the test by a trained professional or by the test subject with self-swabbing produced comparable results. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified that the performance of lateral flow devices is heterogeneous and dependent on the manufacturer. Some perform with high specificity but a great range of sensitivities were shown (38.32–99.19%). Test performance does not appear dependent on the operator. Potentially, LFDs could support the scaling up of mass testing to aid track and trace methodology and break the chain of transmission of COVID-19 with the additional benefit of providing individuals with the results in a much shorter time frame. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-021-06528-3. BioMed Central 2021-08-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8371300/ /pubmed/34407759 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06528-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Mistry, Dylan A.
Wang, Jenny Y.
Moeser, Mika-Erik
Starkey, Thomas
Lee, Lennard Y. W.
A systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of lateral flow devices in the detection of SARS-CoV-2
title A systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of lateral flow devices in the detection of SARS-CoV-2
title_full A systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of lateral flow devices in the detection of SARS-CoV-2
title_fullStr A systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of lateral flow devices in the detection of SARS-CoV-2
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of lateral flow devices in the detection of SARS-CoV-2
title_short A systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of lateral flow devices in the detection of SARS-CoV-2
title_sort systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of lateral flow devices in the detection of sars-cov-2
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8371300/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34407759
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06528-3
work_keys_str_mv AT mistrydylana asystematicreviewofthesensitivityandspecificityoflateralflowdevicesinthedetectionofsarscov2
AT wangjennyy asystematicreviewofthesensitivityandspecificityoflateralflowdevicesinthedetectionofsarscov2
AT moesermikaerik asystematicreviewofthesensitivityandspecificityoflateralflowdevicesinthedetectionofsarscov2
AT starkeythomas asystematicreviewofthesensitivityandspecificityoflateralflowdevicesinthedetectionofsarscov2
AT leelennardyw asystematicreviewofthesensitivityandspecificityoflateralflowdevicesinthedetectionofsarscov2
AT mistrydylana systematicreviewofthesensitivityandspecificityoflateralflowdevicesinthedetectionofsarscov2
AT wangjennyy systematicreviewofthesensitivityandspecificityoflateralflowdevicesinthedetectionofsarscov2
AT moesermikaerik systematicreviewofthesensitivityandspecificityoflateralflowdevicesinthedetectionofsarscov2
AT starkeythomas systematicreviewofthesensitivityandspecificityoflateralflowdevicesinthedetectionofsarscov2
AT leelennardyw systematicreviewofthesensitivityandspecificityoflateralflowdevicesinthedetectionofsarscov2