Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs.Methods and findings: We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies’ heterogeneity in design and reporting.Conclusions: In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.

Radiomics may increase the diagnostic accuracy of medical imaging for localized and metastatic RCC (mRCC). A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Doing so, we comprehensively searched literature databases until May 2020. Studies investigating the diagnostic value of radiomics in differentiation of localized renal tumors and assessment of treatment response to ST in mRCC were included and assessed with respect to their quality using the radiomics quality score (RQS). A total of 113 out of 1098 identified studies met the criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis. Median RQS of all studies was 13.9% (5.0 points, IQR 0.25–7.0 points), and RQS increased over time. Thirty studies were included into the quantitative synthesis: For distinguishing angiomyolipoma, oncocytoma or unspecified benign tumors from RCC, the random effects model showed a log odds ratio (OR) of 2.89 (95%-CI 2.40–3.39, p < 0.001), 3.08 (95%-CI 2.09–4.06, p < 0.001) and 3.57 (95%-CI 2.69–4.45, p < 0.001), respectively. For the general discrimination of benign tumors from RCC log OR was 3.17 (95%-CI 2.73–3.62, p < 0.001). Inhomogeneity of the available studies assessing treatment response in mRCC prevented any meaningful meta-analysis. The application of radiomics seems promising for discrimination of renal tumor dignity. Shared data and open science may assist in improving reproducibility of future studies.

Background: Although cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR) is well accepted in general, CR-attendance and delivery still considerably vary between the European countries. Moreover, clinical and prognostic effects of CR are not well established for a variety of cardiovascular diseases. Methods: The guidelines address all aspects of CR including indications, contents and delivery. By processing the guidelines, every step was externally supervised and moderated by independent members of the “Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany” (AWMF). Four meta-analyses were performed to evaluate the prognostic effect of CR after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), after coronary bypass grafting (CABG), in patients with severe chronic systolic heart failure (HFrEF), and to define the effect of psychological interventions during CR. All other indications for CR-delivery were based on a predefined semi-structured literature search and recommendations were established by a formal consenting process including all medical societies involved in guideline generation. Results: Multidisciplinary CR is associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality in patients after ACS and after CABG, whereas HFrEF-patients (left ventricular ejection fraction <40%) especially benefit in terms of exercise capacity and health-related quality of life. Patients with other cardiovascular diseases also benefit from CR-participation, but the scientific evidence is less clear. There is increasing evidence that the beneficial effect of CR strongly depends on “treatment intensity” including medical supervision, treatment of cardiovascular risk factors, information and education, and a minimum of individually adapted exercise volume. Additional psychologic interventions should be performed on the basis of individual needs. Conclusions: These guidelines reinforce the substantial benefit of CR in specific clinical indications, but also describe remaining deficits in CR-delivery in clinical practice as well as in CR-science with respect to methodology and presentation.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs. Methods and Results: We registered the review on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix and bioRvix, FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until April 30 ^th , 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed and when more than four studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS 2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy data sets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity was 71.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 68.2 to 74.0) and increased to 76.3% (CI 73.1 to 79.2) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions. The LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity with 88.2% (CI 59.0 to 97.5). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best with 80.2% sensitivity (CI 70.3 to 87.4). Across all Ag-RDTs sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower Ct-values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, CI 92.6 to 98.4) and <25 (95.8%, CI 92.3 to 97.8), in comparison to those with Ct ≥25 (50.7%, CI 35.6 to 65.8) and ≥30 (20.9%, CI 12.5 to 32.8). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, CI 76.3 to 89.2) compared to testing after one week (61.5%, CI 52.2 to 70.0). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, CI 70.4 to 79.9) in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal 71.6%, CI 68.1 to 74.9) although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all data sets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of data sets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies’ heterogeneity in design and reporting, making it difficult to draw conclusions from. Conclusion: In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of cases within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data. AUTHOR SUMMARY: Why was this study done? – Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are considered an important diagnostic tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2 – An increasing number of Ag-RDTs is offered on the market, and a constantly growing body of literature evaluating their performance is available – To inform decision makers about the best test to choose, an up to date summary of their performance is needed What did the researchers do and find? – On a weekly basis, we search multiple data bases for evaluations of Ag-RDTs detecting SARS-CoV-2 and post the results on www.diagnosticsglobalhealth.org – Based on the search results up until April 30 ^th , 2021, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, including a total of 133 clinical and analytical accuracy studies – Across all meta-analyzed studies, when Ag-RDTs were performed according to manufacturers’ recommendations, they showed a sensitivity of 76.3% (CI 73.1 to 79.2), with the LumiraDx (sensitivity 88.2%, CI 59.0 to 97.5) and of the instrument-free Ag-RDT Standard Q (74.9% sensitivity, CI 69.3 to 79.7) performing best. – Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity increased to 95.8% (CI 92.3 to 97.8) when restricting the analysis to samples with high viral loads (i.e., a Ct-value <25) and to 83.8% (CI 76.3 to 89.2) when tests were performed on patients within the first week after symptom onset What do these findings mean? – Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of cases within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease – Out of all assessed tests, the Lumira Dx showed the highest accuracy. The Standard Q wasthe best performing test when only considering those that don’t require an instrument – A standardization of reporting methods for clinical accuracy studies would enhance future test-comparisons

Background: Scientific guidelines have been developed to update and harmonize exercise based cardiac rehabilitation (ebCR) in German speaking countries. Key recommendations for ebCR indications have recently been published in part 1 of this journal. The present part 2 updates the evidence with respect to contents and delivery of ebCR in clinical practice, focusing on exercise training (ET), psychological interventions (PI), patient education (PE). In addition, special patients’ groups and new developments, such as telemedical (Tele) or home-based ebCR, are discussed as well. Methods: Generation of evidence and search of literature have been described in part 1. Results: Well documented evidence confirms the prognostic significance of ET in patients with coronary artery disease. Positive clinical effects of ET are described in patients with congestive heart failure, heart valve surgery or intervention, adults with congenital heart disease, and peripheral arterial disease. Specific recommendations for risk stratification and adequate exercise prescription for continuous-, interval-, and strength training are given in detail. PI when added to ebCR did not show significant positive effects in general. There was a positive trend towards reduction in depressive symptoms for “distress management” and “lifestyle changes”. PE is able to increase patients’ knowledge and motivation, as well as behavior changes, regarding physical activity, dietary habits, and smoking cessation. The evidence for distinct ebCR programs in special patients’ groups is less clear. Studies on Tele-CR predominantly included low-risk patients. Hence, it is questionable, whether clinical results derived from studies in conventional ebCR may be transferred to Tele-CR. Conclusions: ET is the cornerstone of ebCR. Additional PI should be included, adjusted to the needs of the individual patient. PE is able to promote patients self-management, empowerment, and motivation. Diversity-sensitive structures should be established to interact with the needs of special patient groups and gender issues. Tele-CR should be further investigated as a valuable tool to implement ebCR more widely and effectively.