Corrigendum to "Preapproval and postapproval diagnostic test accuracy of food and drug administration-authorized rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 tests used according to instruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis" Clin Microbiol Infect, 31 (10) 2025, 1630–1638

The authors regret an error in the study selection process due to incorrect handling of records following the Embase filtering step.Consequently, 785 references from the primary study search and 43 references from the review search component (total n = 828) were wrongly excluded by the search filter, and therefore not screened at the title and abstract stage.The issue was confined to the Embase database search.The search strategies themselves, including the syntax and limits applied in Ovid, were correct, and therefore we are uncertain what caused the error to occur.Importantly, we have rerun all database searches again, verified their accuracy and screened the omitted title and abstracts.The overall impact on the review is limited, as the majority of relevant studies were retrieved through supplementary manual searches in Google Scholar.However, the correction results in 22 additional full-text as-J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f sessments of which 3 (postapproval) studies were included (total of 863 participants), and subsequently one 1 more preapproval study for comparison could be included.These changes resulted in minor numerical changes: the proportion of rapid antigen test brands lacking postapproval studies changed from 48 (79%) to 46 (75%), and the estimated absolute difference in sensitivity between pre-and postapproval studies changed from 2.0% (95% CI -1.9 to 6.2) to 1.9% (95% CI -2.2 to 6.0).In addition, one further test brand comparison showed a lower sensitivity in the postapproval study versus the postapproval study (absolute difference -8.0%, 95% CI -15.0 to -1.0).