Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33310764›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2021

Analytical Sensitivity of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card.

Garrett A Perchetti, Meei-Li Huang, Margaret G Mills, Keith R Jerome, Alexander L Greninger

Open access · greenAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. The Microfoundations of Organizational Risk.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Lateral Flow Immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  17. Rapid and accurate identification of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants using droplet digital PCR (RT-ddPCR).Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Garrett A PerchettiDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Virology Division, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Meei-Li HuangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Virology Division, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Margaret G MillsDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Virology Division, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Keith R JeromeDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Virology Division, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Alexander L GreningerDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Virology Division, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA agrening@uw.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7443-0527
University of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple rapid antigen (Ag) tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have recently received emergency-use authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Although less sensitive than molecular detection methods, rapid antigen testing offers the potential for inexpensive, quick, decentralized testing. Robust analytical sensitivity data in comparison to reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (qRT-PCR) are currently lacking for many rapid antigen tests. Here, we evaluated the analytical sensitivity of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag card using SARS-CoV-2-positive clinical specimens quantified by reverse transcription-droplet digital PCR (RT-ddPCR) and multiple FDA EUA qRT-PCR platforms using RNA standards. Initial and confirmatory limits of detection for the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag card were determined to be equivalent to 4.04 × 10

Indexed as

Specimen HandlingClinical Laboratory TechniquesCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityAbbottBinaxNOWcoronavirusCOVID-19limit of detectionrapid antigen detectionSARS-CoV-2sensitivity

Identifiers

PMID33310764
PMCPMC8106729
OpenAlexW3112899583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.