The Lancet Microbe · 2023 · 16 citations · 6 references
Veterinary MedicineImmunologyInfectious DiseasesMolecular VirologyVirologyDiagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-analysisRapid Diagnostic TestsSerological DiagnosticsVaccine Safety SurveillancePatient Package InsertsRapid Antigen Detection TestingRapid Antigen TestingRapid Antigen TestsSars-cov-2 InfectionSecondary Case AnalysisViral Serology Screening
BACKGROUND: Rapid antigen tests (RATs) were crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic. Information provided by the test manufacturer in product package inserts, also known as instructions for use (IFUs), is often the only data available to clinicians, public health professionals, and individuals on the diagnostic accuracy of these tests. We aimed to assess whether manufacturer IFU accuracy data aligned with evidence from independent research. METHODS: We searched company websites for package inserts for RATs that were included in the July 2022 update of the Cochrane meta-analysis of SARS-CoV-2 RATs, which served as a benchmark for research evidence. We fitted bivariate hierarchical models to obtain absolute differences in sensitivity and specificity between IFU and Cochrane Review estimates for each test, as well as overall combined differences. FINDINGS: We found 22 (100%) of 22 IFUs of the RATs included in the Cochrane Review. IFUs for 12 (55%) of 22 RATs reported statistically significantly higher sensitivity estimates than the Cochrane Review, and none reported lower estimates. The mean difference between IFU and Cochrane Review sensitivity estimates across tests was 12·0% (95% CI 7·5-16·6). IFUs in three (14%) of 22 diagnostic tests had significantly higher specificity estimates than the Cochrane Review and two (9%) of 22 had lower estimates. The mean difference between IFU and Cochrane Review specificity estimates across tests was 0·3% (95% CI 0·1-0·5). If 100 people with SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested with each of the tests in this study, on average 12 fewer people would be correctly diagnosed than is suggested by the package inserts. INTERPRETATION: Health professionals and the public should be aware that package inserts for SARS-CoV-2 RATs might provide an overly optimistic picture of the sensitivity of a test. Regulatory bodies should strengthen their requirements for the reporting of diagnostic accuracy data in package inserts and policy makers should demand independent validation data for decision making. FUNDING: None.
6
Empirical Evidence of Design-Related Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Tests
Jeroen G. Lijmer · JAMA · 1999 · 1.8K citations
Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy
Mariska Leeflang, Jonathan J Deeks, Constantine Gatsonis et al. · Annals of Internal Medicine · 2008 · 1.1K citations · Full text
Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews
David Moher, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Andrea C. Tricco et al. · PLoS Medicine · 2007 · 903 citations · Full text