000			03386nam a22003857a 4500
999			_c12327 _d12327
001			M CFM 2022 0014
003			PILC
005			20240720153247.0
008			220627b xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_beng _cFEU-NRMF MEDICAL LIBRARY _erda
041			_aenglish
050			_aM CFM 2022 0014
245			_aThe Diagnosis accuracy of rapid antigen test in detecting COVID-19 mate-analysis : _bmeta-analysis / _cMa. Marinela N. Meracap, Smilla P. Montera, Josef Carlyle A. Nery, Patrick Lanz D. Padilla, Christine Mae D. Pajado, Iesous John Andrei M. Pineda, Maria Laica B. Prado, Raniela P. Sampang, Nikka Angelique T. Sison, Jill Anne R. So, Jefrrey Ralph P. Tan and Arnold Bill V. Unidad.
260			_aFairview, Quezon City: _bDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, FEU-NRMF, _c2022.
300			_a51 pages: _billustrations, tables; _c28 cm.
336			_2rdacontent _atext
337			_2rdamedia _aunmediated
338			_2rdacarrier _avolume
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references.
520			_aAbstract: Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) provides a reliable diagnosis of COVID-19 infection which is why it is regarded as the gold standard for viral detection. Utilization of this test takes several hours for the results to be retrieved. Employing of Covid-19 Rapid Antigen Tests Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs) for detection and diagnosis permits a shortened turn-around time as its utilization does not need any specialized equipment and results can be garnered within thirty minutes. This study assessed RATs' diagnositic accuracy for the detection of COVID-19. The study includes diagnostic cross-sectional studies consisting of resources conducted from 2020 to 2022. Evaluation was performed based on the objective of the study and had to meet the criteria for inclusion. With the COVID-19 RT-PCR as a reference standard, those who were qualified in the inclusion criteria were examined for the accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity of the RAT for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2. Literature search was conducted using Cochrane central, Medline, Embase, Herdin and other various databases. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to evaluate the applicability of included students and risk of bias in the study. Analysis of studies included were conducted through RevMan 5.4 and MetaDisc 1.4. Twenty four articles were collected from various electronic databases and only seven articles were included depending upon the entirely of the extracted data. The meta-analysis for antigen testing generated an overall pooled sensitivity, specificity and DOR of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.83-0.85), 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99) and 401.85 (95% CI, 202.24-798.47). Moreover, the area under the curve of SROC was 0.98.
521			_aTHDCFM
700			_aMeracap, Ma. Marinela N. _eauthor
700			_aMontera, Smilla P. _eauthor
700			_aNery, Josef Carlyle A. _eauthor
700			_aPadilla, Patrick Lanz D. _eauthor
700			_aPajado, Christine Mae D. _eauthor
700			_aPineda, Iesous John Andrei M. _eauthor
700			_aPrado, Maria Laica B. _eauthor
700			_aSampang, Raniela P. _eauthor
700			_aSison, Nikka Angelique T. _eauthor
700			_aSo, Jill Anne R. _eauthor
700			_aTan, Jefrrey Ralph P. _eauthor
700			_aUnidad, Arnold Bill V. _eauthor
942			_2lcc _cRU