Pooled analysis of diagnostic performance of the instrument-read Quidel Sofia SARS antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA).

Q2 Medicine
Giuseppe Lippi, Brandon M Henry, Mario Plebani
{"title":"Pooled analysis of diagnostic performance of the instrument-read Quidel Sofia SARS antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA).","authors":"Giuseppe Lippi,&nbsp;Brandon M Henry,&nbsp;Mario Plebani","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This article presents a critical literature review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of Quidel Sofia SARS antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA), a rapid diagnostic antigen test (RDT-Ag) adapted for automatic reading with portable instruments, thus potentially combining the advantages of point-of-care testing with those of a laboratory-based immunoassay.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an electronic search in PubMed and Scopus with the keywords \"Quidel\" OR \"SOFIA\" AND \"Antigen\" AND \"SARS-CoV-2\" OR \"COVID-19\" up to March 24, 2023, for identifying articles containing data on accuracy of Quidel Sofia SARS antigen FIA for diagnosing acute SARS-CoV-2 infections. We selected those where test accuracy was compared to that of a reference SARS-CoV-2 molecular assay, and with sufficient information for constructing a 2×2 table.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total number of 18 articles (48165 samples; 9.8% positive at molecular testing) were included in this meta-analysis, averaging 24 sample cohorts. The diagnostic accuracy (summary area under the curve), sensitivity and specificity were 0.980, 0.76 and 1.00 in all samples, 0.981, 0.81 and 0.99 in samples collected from symptomatic patients, 0.931, 0.55 and 1.00 in those taken from asymptomatic patients, and 0.960, 0.77 and 0.99 in samples from mixed cohorts of patients, respectively. Minor and clinically negligible differences of accuracy could be found by comparing test results in nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Quidel Sofia SARS Ag FIA meets the minimum performance criteria of accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 antigenic testing, thus combining satisfactory diagnostic performance with the advantages of being potentially used as a portable device.</p>","PeriodicalId":37192,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine","volume":"34 2","pages":"123-141"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/5a/fc/ejifcc-34-123.PMC10349315.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This article presents a critical literature review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of Quidel Sofia SARS antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA), a rapid diagnostic antigen test (RDT-Ag) adapted for automatic reading with portable instruments, thus potentially combining the advantages of point-of-care testing with those of a laboratory-based immunoassay.

Methods: We conducted an electronic search in PubMed and Scopus with the keywords "Quidel" OR "SOFIA" AND "Antigen" AND "SARS-CoV-2" OR "COVID-19" up to March 24, 2023, for identifying articles containing data on accuracy of Quidel Sofia SARS antigen FIA for diagnosing acute SARS-CoV-2 infections. We selected those where test accuracy was compared to that of a reference SARS-CoV-2 molecular assay, and with sufficient information for constructing a 2×2 table.

Results: A total number of 18 articles (48165 samples; 9.8% positive at molecular testing) were included in this meta-analysis, averaging 24 sample cohorts. The diagnostic accuracy (summary area under the curve), sensitivity and specificity were 0.980, 0.76 and 1.00 in all samples, 0.981, 0.81 and 0.99 in samples collected from symptomatic patients, 0.931, 0.55 and 1.00 in those taken from asymptomatic patients, and 0.960, 0.77 and 0.99 in samples from mixed cohorts of patients, respectively. Minor and clinically negligible differences of accuracy could be found by comparing test results in nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs.

Conclusion: Quidel Sofia SARS Ag FIA meets the minimum performance criteria of accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 antigenic testing, thus combining satisfactory diagnostic performance with the advantages of being potentially used as a portable device.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Quidel Sofia SARS抗原荧光免疫分析法(FIA)诊断性能的汇总分析。
背景:本文对Quidel Sofia SARS抗原荧光免疫分析法(FIA)的诊断性能进行了重要的文献回顾和荟萃分析,这是一种快速诊断抗原检测(RDT-Ag),适用于便携式仪器的自动读取,因此有可能将护理点检测与实验室免疫测定的优势结合起来。方法:截止到2023年3月24日,以“Quidel”OR“SOFIA”和“Antigen”and“SARS- cov -2”OR“COVID-19”为关键词,在PubMed和Scopus中进行电子检索,寻找含有Quidel SOFIA SARS抗原FIA诊断急性SARS- cov -2感染准确性数据的文章。我们选择了那些测试精度与参考SARS-CoV-2分子检测相比较,并且具有足够信息构建2×2表的测试。结果:共18篇(48165份样本);9.8%分子检测呈阳性)纳入本荟萃分析,平均24个样本队列。所有样本的诊断准确率(曲线下汇总面积)、灵敏度和特异性分别为0.980、0.76和1.00,有症状患者样本的诊断准确率为0.981、0.81和0.99,无症状患者样本的诊断准确率为0.931、0.55和1.00,混合队列患者样本的诊断准确率为0.960、0.77和0.99。通过比较鼻咽拭子和鼻咽拭子的检测结果,可以发现准确性的微小差异和临床可忽略不计的差异。结论:Quidel Sofia SARS Ag FIA符合SARS- cov -2抗原检测准确性的最低性能标准,具有令人满意的诊断性能和可作为便携式仪器使用的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信