Tehran University of Medical Sciences Journal of Arthropod-Borne Diseases 2322-1984 0 0 2026 10 31 1986 1986 Alireza Zare-Karizi Department of Vector Biology and Control of Diseases, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, Student’s Scientific Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Bita Ghaderi Department of Vector Biology and Control of Diseases, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, Student’s Scientific Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Mohammad Mehdi Sedaghat Department of Vector Biology and Control of Diseases, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Seyed Hojjat Khatamifar Department of Medical Library and Information Science, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Mohammad Javad Dehnavi Department of Medical Library and Information Science, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Baher Esmaeil-Pour Department of Vector Biology and Control of Diseases, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, Student’s Scientific Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Hamidreza Basseri - 2026 07 27 2026 10 06 Background: Centralized diagnostics can delay detection of vector-borne pathogens. Molecular point-of-care (mPOC) technologies may address this gap, but performance and field readiness remain uncertain. Methods: This rapid systematic review followed Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy guidance. PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science (Clarivate) were searched for 2020–2025 publications (13 September 2025). Two-by-two data were extracted or reconstructed, and sensitivity and specificity were recalculated with 95% Wilson confidence in­ter­vals. Studies were classified by setting, assessed using the real-time connectivity, ease of specimen collection, afford­able, sensitive, specific, user-friendly, rapid and robust, equipment-free and deliverable to end-users (REAS­SURED) criteria, and appraised with Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2. Heterogeneity led to narrative synthesis. Results: 1,964 records yielded 22 studies: 11 malaria, 6 leishmaniasis and 5 arboviral infections. Twenty-one stud­ies provided two-by-two data, yielding 26 non-overlapping analyses. One study reported sensitivity only (86.4%, 95% con­fidence interval 75.5–93.0%) and one analysis was not reconstructable. Median sample size was 100 (in­terquartile range 76.5–161.5; range 13–490). Thirteen analyses reported 100% sensitivity or specificity, but 9 had lower confi­dence lim­its below 90%. Four studies evaluated point-of-care tests. Based on lower confidence limits, 8 met sensi­tivity and 5 met specificity REASSURED thresholds; 6 met real-time connectivity and 7 met ease of spec­imen col­lection. Seventeen (77.3%) reported no cost data. Conclusions: mPOC technologies are promising, but evidence is dominated by laboratory or near-laboratory stud­ies with imprecise estimates. Multicenter field evaluations, standardized reporting including costs and complete two-by-two data are needed before integration. https://jad.tums.ac.ir/index.php/jad/article/view/1986 https://jad.tums.ac.ir/index.php/jad/article/download/1986/751