RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Self-tests for COVID-19: what is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023)
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.08.09.23293885
DO 10.1101/2023.08.09.23293885
A1 Anand, Apoorva
A1 Vialard, Fiorella
A1 Esmail, Aliasgar
A1 Khan, Faiz Ahmad
A1 O’Byrne, Patrick
A1 Routy, Jean-Pierre
A1 Dheda, Keertan
A1 Pai, Nitika Pant
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/10/2023.08.09.23293885.abstract
AB COVID-19 self-testing strategy (COVIDST) can rapidly identify symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals and their contacts, potentially reducing transmission. In this living systematic review, we evaluated the evidence for real-world COVIDST performance. Two independent reviewers searched six databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, World Health Organization database, Cochrane COVID-19 registry, Europe PMC) for the period April 1st, 2020, to January 18th, 2023. Data on studies evaluating COVIDST against laboratory-based conventional testing and reported on diagnostic accuracy, feasibility, acceptability, impact, and qualitative outcomes were abstracted. Bivariate random effects meta-analyses of COVIDST accuracy were performed (n=14). Subgroup analyses (by sampling site, symptomatic/asymptomatic infection, supervised/unsupervised strategy, with/without digital supports) were conducted. Data from 70 included studies, conducted across 25 countries with a median sample size of 817 (range: 28-784,707) were pooled. Specificity was high overall, irrespective of subgroups (98.37-99.71%). Highest sensitivities were reported for: a) symptomatic individuals (73.91%, 95%CI: 68.41-78.75%; n=9), b) mid-turbinate nasal samples (77.79%, 95%CI: 56.03-90.59%; n=14), c) supervised strategy (86.67%, 95%CI: 59.64-96.62%; n=13), and d) presence of digital interventions (70.15%, 95%CI: 50.18-84.63%; n=14). Sensitivity was lower in asymptomatic populations (40.18%, 95% CI: 21.52-62.20%; n=4), due to errors in test conduct and absence of supervision or a digital support. We found no difference in COVIDST sensitivity between delta and omicron pre-dominant period. Digital supports increased confidence in COVIDST reporting and interpretation (n=16). Overall acceptability was 91.0-98.7% (n=2) with lower acceptability reported for daily self-testing (39.5-51.1%). Feasibility was 69.0-100.0% (n=5) with lower feasibility (35.9-64.6%) for serial self-testing. COVIDST decreased closures in school, workplace, and social events (n=4). COVIDST is an effective rapid screening strategy for home-, workplace- or school-based screening, for symptomatic persons, and for preventing transmission during outbreaks. This data is useful for updating COVIDST policy. Our review demonstrates that COVIDST has paved the way for the introduction of self-tests, worldwide.Competing Interest StatementNPP reports an open access application for COVID self-testing: ?COVIDSmart CARE!?, McGill University Copyright 2022-002. This digital innovation was supported by the CIHR Grant Number 174921.Funding StatementThis work was funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Grant Number: 174921. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. NPP acknowledges additional support from Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé (Merité Award - 324154). https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/193.html https://frq.gouv.qc.ca/en/Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:No Ethics Approval was required for this systematic review and meta-analysisI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.