Population health and implementation outcomes of self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 using antigen detecting diagnostics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: COVID-19 antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for self-testing (C19ST) have been widely implemented. However, evidence on population health and implementation outcomes remains limited. We systematically evaluated population health and implementation outcomes of C19ST to inform WHO guidelines and pandemic preparedness. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42022299977), searching Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, MedRxiv, clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane Library from Dec 1, 2020, to Oct 1, 2025. We included cohort, case-control, cross-sectional, before-and-after, and randomised studies with symptomatic and asymptomatic participants using commercially available C19ST Ag-RDTs. Primary outcomes included C19ST population health (case detection, test positivity, number needed to test (NNT)) and implementation outcomes (uptake, adherence, result reporting). Meta-analyses used binomial-normal generalised linear mixed models; study quality assessment used the JBI Quasi-Experimental Tool. Findings: Of 19,473 records screened, 61 studies (87 datasets) with 25,288,225 participants (78% asymptomatic) were included. C19ST detected 31 (95% CI 14-65) cases per 1000 individuals, missing 14% (95% CI 1-65%) compared to molecular testing. Test positivity was 7 per 1000 tests (95% CI 3-15); false positives occurred in 0.4% (95% CI 0.2-1.0%). NNT was 75 in symptomatic and 1002 in asymptomatic individuals. Uptake, adherence, and result reporting were high, but estimates were limited by selection bias. C19ST was also reported to improve perceptions of safety, and reduce self-isolation, workplace absenteeism, and other societal disruptions, supporting the continuity of daily activities. Heterogeneity was substantial. Interpretation: C19ST improves case detection and supports pandemic control with acceptable accuracy and meaningful societal benefits. These findings support the use of antigen-based self-testing as a complementary tool for a pandemic response. Studies included further highlight the limited use of standardised frameworks for evaluating population health and implementation outcomes of novel diagnostics. Funding: Ministry of Science, Research and Arts of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
EClinicalMedicine
Published
2026-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2026.103838
Primary Topic
SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Population health and implementation outcomes of self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 using antigen detecting diagnostics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Verena Faehling, Rose Lee, Stephan Katzenschlager, Maurizio Grilli et al.
EClinicalMedicine
SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
article

Population health and implementation outcomes of self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 using antigen detecting diagnostics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Verena Faehling, Rose Lee, Stephan Katzenschlager, Maurizio Grilli, Berra Erkoşar, Aurélien Macé, Stefano Ongarello, Hannah Tolle, Christian Erdmann, Lukas E. Brümmer, Jilian A. Sacks, Nicole Skoetz, Ana-Mihaela Zorger, Karina Worbes, Seda Yerlikaya, Jane Cunningham, Sean McGrath, Cheryl C. Johnson, Nira R. Pollock, Claudia M. Denkinger
article en

Abstract

Background: COVID-19 antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for self-testing (C19ST) have been widely implemented. However, evidence on population health and implementation outcomes remains limited. We systematically evaluated population health and implementation outcomes of C19ST to inform WHO guidelines and pandemic preparedness. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42022299977), searching Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, MedRxiv, clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane Library from Dec 1, 2020, to Oct 1, 2025. We included cohort, case-control, cross-sectional, before-and-after, and randomised studies with symptomatic and asymptomatic participants using commercially available C19ST Ag-RDTs. Primary outcomes included C19ST population health (case detection, test positivity, number needed to test (NNT)) and implementation outcomes (uptake, adherence, result reporting). Meta-analyses used binomial-normal generalised linear mixed models; study quality assessment used the JBI Quasi-Experimental Tool. Findings: Of 19,473 records screened, 61 studies (87 datasets) with 25,288,225 participants (78% asymptomatic) were included. C19ST detected 31 (95% CI 14-65) cases per 1000 individuals, missing 14% (95% CI 1-65%) compared to molecular testing. Test positivity was 7 per 1000 tests (95% CI 3-15); false positives occurred in 0.4% (95% CI 0.2-1.0%). NNT was 75 in symptomatic and 1002 in asymptomatic individuals. Uptake, adherence, and result reporting were high, but estimates were limited by selection bias. C19ST was also reported to improve perceptions of safety, and reduce self-isolation, workplace absenteeism, and other societal disruptions, supporting the continuity of daily activities. Heterogeneity was substantial. Interpretation: C19ST improves case detection and supports pandemic control with acceptable accuracy and meaningful societal benefits. These findings support the use of antigen-based self-testing as a complementary tool for a pandemic response. Studies included further highlight the limited use of standardised frameworks for evaluating population health and implementation outcomes of novel diagnostics. Funding: Ministry of Science, Research and Arts of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany.

EClinicalMedicineVol. 94
FIND (CH), Boston Children's Hospital (US), International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (CH), Harvard University (US), Heidelberg University (DE), University Hospital Heidelberg (DE), Yale University (US), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB), World Health Organization (CH), Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (US), German Center for Infection Research (DE), Boston Children's Museum (US), University Hospital Cologne (DE), National Institutes of Health Clinical Center (US), University Medical Centre Mannheim (DE), FH Münster University of Applied Sciences (DE)
National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, World Health Organization, American University of Beirut, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Department for International Development, UK Government, University of Liverpool, Department for International Development, Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Medizinische Universität Innsbruck, Medizinische Universität Graz, Universität Innsbruck, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, National Institutes of Health
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.