Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Self-tests for COVID-19: What is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023).
Anand, Apoorva; Vialard, Fiorella; Esmail, Aliasgar; Ahmad Khan, Faiz; O'Byrne, Patrick; Routy, Jean-Pierre; Dheda, Keertan; Pant Pai, Nitika.
Afiliação
  • Anand A; Centre for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Vialard F; Infectious Diseases and Immunity in Global Health, Research Institute of McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Esmail A; Centre for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Ahmad Khan F; Infectious Diseases and Immunity in Global Health, Research Institute of McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • O'Byrne P; Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Routy JP; Centre for Lung Infection and Immunity, Division of Pulmonology, UCT Lung Institute and Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa.
  • Dheda K; Centre for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Pant Pai N; Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
PLOS Glob Public Health ; 4(2): e0002336, 2024.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38324519
ABSTRACT
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 and DOR 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) use of digital interventions (70.15%, 95%CI 50.18-84.63%; n = 14). Lower sensitivity was attributed to absence of symptoms, 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%). Overall 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. These data will guide COVIDST policy. Our review demonstrates that COVIDST has paved the way for self-testing in pandemics worldwide.

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: PLOS Glob Public Health Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Canadá País de publicação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: PLOS Glob Public Health Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Canadá País de publicação: Estados Unidos