Effectiveness of rapid antigen testing for screening of asymptomatic individuals to limit the transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2: A rapid review. (29th March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Walsh, Kieran A.; Broderick, Natasha; Ahern, Susan; Fawsitt, Christopher G.; O'Brien, Katie M.; Carrigan, Marie; Harrington, Patricia; O'Neill, Michelle; Smith, Susan M.; Spillane, Susan; Teljeur, Conor; Ryan, Máirín
• Is Part Of: Reviews in medical virology. Volume 32:Number 5(2022)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-03-29
• Subjects: antigen -- asymptomatic -- Covid‐19 -- rapid testing -- SARS‐CoV‐2 -- screening; Medical virology -- Periodicals; Review Literature -- Periodicals; Virus Diseases -- Periodicals; Viruses -- Periodicals; 616.0194
• DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2350
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1052-9276

Abstract

Abstract: Rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) offer advantages over gold‐standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) tests in that they are cheaper and provide faster results, thus enabling prompt isolation of positive SARS‐CoV‐2 cases and quarantine of close contacts. The aim of this study was to collate and synthesise empirical evidence on the effectiveness of rapid antigen testing for the screening (including serial testing) and surveillance of asymptomatic individuals to limit the transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2. A rapid review was undertaken in MEDLINE (EBSCO), EMBASE (OVID), Cochrane Library, Europe PMC and Google Scholar up until 19 July 2021, supplemented by a grey literature search. Of the identified 1222 records, 19 reports referring to 16 studies were included. Eight included studies examined the effectiveness of RADTs for population‐level screening, four for pre‐event screening and four for serial testing (schools, a prison, a university sports programme and in care homes). Overall, there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of rapid antigen testing for the screening of asymptomatic individuals to limit the transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2. This uncertainty is due to the inconsistent results, the relatively low number of studies identified, the predominantly observational and/or uncontrolled nature of the study designs used, and concerns regarding methodological quality. Given this uncertainty, more real‐world research evidence in relevant settings, which is of good quality and timely, as well as economic evaluation, is required to inform public policy on the widespread use of RADTs in asymptomatic individuals.