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