Comparable performance of antigen-detecting rapid test by healthcare worker-collected and self-collected swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Usage of self-screening tests has become increasingly relevant in public health perspective for early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the transitioning era of the COVID-19 pandemic into an endemic. This study was designed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of self-conducted and health professional-conducted SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (Ag-RDTs) and whether the sample was taken from anterior nasal or nasal mid-turbinate. Eligible comparative Ag-RDTs accuracy studies were retrieved from electronic databases systematically, in accordance with PRISMA. Selected studies were assessed for risk of bias using QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C. In total, we selected five out of 1952 studies retrieved using the keywords. The overall sensitivity for the self-collected nasal swab method and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal swab method was 79% (95% CI 68-87; I²  = 62%) and 83% (95% CI 75-89; I²  = 32%), respectively, which was not statistically different (p = 0.499). Nasal mid-turbinate swabs have a significantly higher sensitivity compared to anterior nasal swabs (p < 0.01). Both sampling methods represent high and comparable specificity values of 98% (95% CI 97-99; I²  = 0%) and 99% (95% CI 98-99; I²  = 0%). Positive predictive value (range 90%-99%) and negative predictive value (range 87%-98%) were equivalent for both methods. Our findings indicated the accuracy of self-collected Ag-RDT on nasal swabs was comparable to those performed by healthcare worker-collected on nasopharyngeal swabs. Self-collected Ag-RDT could be considered as a transmission prevention method in the transition of COVID-19 pandemic.