Skip to main content

Table 2 Sensitivity and specificity data extracted from each study

From: A systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of lateral flow devices in the detection of SARS-CoV-2

Study Sample size True Positive False Negative False Positive True Negative Sensitivity Sensitivity 95% CI Low Sensitivity 95% CI High Specificity Specificity 95% CI Low Specificity 95% CI High
Iglὁi et al. [23] 970 NA NA NA NA 84.9 79.1 89.4 99.5 98.7 99.8
Berger et al. (Ag2) [15] 535 NA NA NA NA 85.5 78.0 92.1 100.0 99.1 100.0
Berger et al. (Ag1) [15] 529 NA NA NA NA 89.0 83.7 93.1 99.7 98.4 100.0
Abdelrazik et al. [12] 310 81 107 0 122 43.1 36.2 50.2 100.0 97.0 100.0
Abdulrahman et al. [13] 4183 602 131 30 3420 82.1 79.2 84.7 99.1 98.8 99.4
Albert et al. [14] 412 43 11 0 358 79.6 67.1 88.2 100.0 98.9 100.0
Blairon et al. [16] † 774 60 99 0 615 37.7† 30.6† 45.5† 100.0 99.4 100.0
Bulilete et al. [17]* 1369 100 40 2 1220 71.4 63.5* 78.3* 99.8 99.4* 100.0
Chaimayo et al. [19]† 454† 64 -4 4 390 106.7† NA† NA† 99.0† 97.4† 99.6
Courtellemont et al. [20] 248 117 4 0 127 96.7 91.8 98.7 100.0 97.1 100.0
Drevinek et al. [21] (Ag1) 591 148 75 0 368 66.4 59.9 72.2 100.0 99.0 100.0
Drevinek et al. [21] (Ag2)* 591 141 82 2 366 63.2* 56.7 69.3 99.5 98.0 99.9
Gremmels et al. [22]† 1575 152 50 0 1373 75.2† 68.9† 80.7† 100.0 99.7 100.0
L.J. Krüger et al. [24] (2020) 1108 92 14 1 1001 86.8 79.0 92.0 99.9 99.4 100.0
L.J. Krüger et al. [25] (2020) 2417 50 20 85 2262 71.4 60.0 80.7 96.4 95.5 97.1
L.J. Krüger et al. [25] (2020) (Ag1) 1263 36 11 9 1207 76.6 62.8 86.4 99.3 98.6 99.6
L.J. Krüger et al. [25] (2020) (Ag2) 425 4 4 25 392 50.0 21.5 78.5 94.0 91.3 95.9
L.J. Krüger et al. [25] (2020) (Ag3) 729 10 5 51 663 66.7 41.7 84.8 92.9 90.7 94.5
Linares et al. [26]† 255 40 20 0 195 66.7† 54.1† 77.3† 100.0 98.1 100.0
Masiá et al. [27]* 913 118 78 0 709 60.2* 53.2 66.8 100.0 99.5 100.0
Merino-Amador et al. [28] 958 325 34 7 592 90.5 87.1 93.1 98.8 97.6 99.4
Moeren et al. [29]† 352 122 1 0 334 99.2† 95.5† 99.9† 100.0 98.9 100.0
Nalumansi et al. [30] 262 63 27 13 159 70.0 59.9 78.5 92.4 87.5 95.5
Peto et al. [31] 6954 155 42 22 6735 78.7 72.4 83.8 99.7 99.5 99.8
Porte et al. [32] 127 77 5 0 45 93.9 86.5 97.4 100.0 92.1 100.0
Torres et al. [34] 634 38 41 0 555 48.1 37.4 59.0 100.0 99.3 100.0
Veyrenche et al. [35]† 45† 13 32 0 0 28.9† 17.7† 43.4† NA† NA† NA†
Schwob et al. [33]† 928 327 45 0 601 87.9† 84.2† 90.8† 100.0 99.4 100.0
  1. *Shows data which had slight variations between our data calculations and the calculations made in the study, possibly due to a different method for calculating 95% confidence intervals.
  2. †Shows data that produced significant differences in between our calculated data and the study’s data or it was not possible to calculate sensitivity and specificity from the data in the study
Back to article page

BMC Infectious Diseases

ISSN: 1471-2334

Contact us