Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32996031›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2021

Performance and user-friendliness of the rapid antigen detection tests QuickVue Dipstick Strep A test and DIAQUICK Strep A Blue Dipstick for pharyngotonsillitis caused by Streptococcus pyogenes in primary health care.

Una Ørvim Sølvik, Elisabet Eriksson Boija, Sara Ekvall, Afamia Jabbour, Anne Christin Breivik, Gunnar Nordin, Sverre Sandberg

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Una Ørvim SølvikDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. una.solvik@uib.no.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4186-6620
Elisabet Eriksson BoijaEqualis AB, Uppsala, Sweden.
Sara EkvallEqualis AB, Uppsala, Sweden.
Afamia JabbourDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Office for Medical Service, Region Skåne, Lund, Sweden.
Anne Christin BreivikNoklus (Norwegian Organization for Quality Improvement of Laboratory Examinations), Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Gunnar NordinEqualis AB, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5175-8351
Sverre SandbergDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9521-5087
Haukeland University Hospital · NOUniversity of Bergen · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) for detection of group A hemolytic streptococcus (GAS) vary. The purpose is to present the first SKUP (Scandinavian evaluation of laboratory equipment for point of care testing) evaluations concerning the assessment of the diagnostic performance and user-friendliness of two RADTs for detection of GAS when used under real-life conditions in primary health care. Throat samples were collected in duplicates at primary health care centers (PHCCs) from patients with symptoms of pharyngitis. The performance of QuickVue Dipstick Strep A test (307 samples) and DIAQUICK Strep A Blue Dipstick (348 samples) was evaluated using culture results at a clinical microbiology laboratory as comparison. The user-friendliness was evaluated using a questionnaire. The diagnostic sensitivity was 92% (90% confidence interval (CI) 87-96%) and 72% (90% CI 65-79%), while the diagnostic specificity was 86% (90% CI 81-90%) and 98% (90% CI 96-99%) for QuickVue Dipstick Strep A test and DIAQUICK Strep A Blue Dipstick, respectively. Both RADTs obtained acceptable assessments for user-friendliness and fulfilled SKUP's quality goal for user-friendliness. The diagnostic sensitivity for QuickVue Dipstick Strep A test and the diagnostic specificity for DIAQUICK Strep A Blue Dipstick in this objective and supplier-independent evaluation were higher compared with previous meta-analyses of RADTs. However, the diagnostic specificity for QuickVue Dipstick Strep A test and the diagnostic sensitivity for DIAQUICK Strep A Blue Dipstick were lower compared with previous meta-analyses of RADTs.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntigens, BacterialChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedPharyngitisPoint-of-Care TestingPrimary Health CareProspective StudiesAntigens, BacterialReagent Kits, DiagnosticDiagnostic sensitivityDiagnostic specificityPrimary health careRapid antigen detection testStreptococcus pyogenesUser-friendliness

Identifiers

PMID32996031
PMCPMC7892498
OpenAlexW3090462814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.