Diagnostic evaluation of Panbio™ antigen rapid diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 37696303
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2023.114811
Diagnostic evaluation of Panbio™ antigen rapid diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Introduction: The reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the reference diagnostic method for the confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infected cases. However, various antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) have been developed. The purpose of this meta-analysis study was to assess the diagnostic performance of Panbio™ Ag-RDT (Abbott Point of Care) in identifying the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Methods: We systematically searched eight databases from March 2020 until March 2023 to look for potentially eligible articles. Diagnostic meta-analysis of Panbio™ Ag-RDT used diverse evaluation indicators, including sensitivity, specificity, Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC) value.
Results: Of the 794 articles identified, 49 studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled estimates of Panbio™ Ag-RDT for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were 0,65 (95% CI: 0,64-0,66), 0,99 (95% CI: 0,99-1,00), 578,03 (95% CI: 333,37-1002,26) for sensitivity, specificity, and DOR, respectively. Moreover, the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve revealed an AUC value of 0,942 (95% CI: 0,941-0,943), suggesting an outstanding diagnostic accuracy. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed that continent, study period, age, study population and cycle threshold (Ct) values constituted a source of heterogeneity. Furthermore, we demonstrated proof of publication bias for DOR values analyzed using Deek's test (p = 0,001) and funnel plot.
Conclusion: Panbio™ Ag-RDT presented an outstanding diagnostic accuracy in the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in both adults and children with or without symptoms.
Keywords: Accuracy; COVID-19; Panbio™ Ag-RDT; Sensitivity; Specificity.
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Similar articles
-
Evaluation of the Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen detection rapid diagnostic test among healthcare workers in elderly care.PLoS One. 2023 Feb 24;18(2):e0276244. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276244. eCollection 2023. PLoS One. 2023. PMID: 36827362 Free PMC article.
-
Diagnostic accuracy of Panbio™ rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 in paediatric population.BMC Pediatr. 2023 Aug 29;23(1):433. doi: 10.1186/s12887-023-04201-z. BMC Pediatr. 2023. PMID: 37644389 Free PMC article.
-
Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression analyzing influencing factors.PLoS Med. 2022 May 26;19(5):e1004011. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004011. eCollection 2022 May. PLoS Med. 2022. PMID: 35617375 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluating diagnostic accuracies of Panbio™ test and RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia using Bayesian Latent-Class Models (BLCM).PLoS One. 2022 Oct 19;17(10):e0268160. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268160. eCollection 2022. PLoS One. 2022. PMID: 36260547 Free PMC article.
-
Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS Med. 2021 Aug 12;18(8):e1003735. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003735. eCollection 2021 Aug. PLoS Med. 2021. PMID: 34383750 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous