ArticleBMJ open2019
Performance evaluation of three rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of group A
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic performance of three rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) for group A
designA hospital-based, cross-sectional, retrospective study.
settingA comparative study of rapid diagnostic tests for GAS using clinical specimens in a single institute.
participants225 children in the outpatient clinics ofKorea University Guro Hospitalwith suspicious symptoms were subjected to throat swab sampling. A dual-swab applicator was used. Samples were stored at below -70°C in a 10 mL transport tube containing 1 mL liquid Stuart's transport medium. OUTCOME MEASURES: All tests were performed in the laboratory by trained clinical laboratory scientists. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and kappa index of three RADTs were compared with the reference PCR test and culture results.
resultsOf the 225 patients suspected of having GAS, 67 and 90 were positive for GAS in the culture and PCR tests, respectively. Compared with the reference culture, the sensitivity for GAS was 92.5% (CI 83.4 to 97.5), 71.6% (CI 59.3 to 81.9) and 74.63% (CI 62.5 to 84.4) for careUS Strep A Plus, SD Bioline and BD Veritor, respectively, and the specificity was 97.0% (CI 93.1 to 99.0), 94.6% (CI 90.1 to 97.5) and 92.9% (CI 87.8 to 96.2) for careUS Strep A Plus, SD Bioline and BD Veritor, respectively. Compared with the reference GAS real-time PCR, the sensitivity was 73.3% (CI 62.9 to 82.1), 63.3% (CI 52.5 to 73.2) and 67.8% (CI 57.1 to 77.2) for careUS Strep A Plus, SD Bioline and BD Veritor, respectively, and the specificity was 99.3% (CI 95.9 to 99.9), 100.0% (CI 97.3 to 100.0) and 99.3% (CI 95.9 to 99.9) for careUS Strep A Plus, SD Bioline and BD Veritor, respectively.
conclusionsThe careUS Strep A Plus is a useful test that showed highly comparable results with those of the culture test and superior performances among the three RADTs. The use of RADTs should be encouraged to provide acceptable and fast results using simple equipment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.