Rapid antigen and molecular tests had varied sensitivity and ≥97% specificity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Choice of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test: challenges and key considerations for the future.Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences · 2022
   Review
2. Multisite Clinical Validation of Isothermal Amplification-Based SARS-CoV-2 Detection Assays Using Different Sampling Strategies.Microbiology spectrum · 2021
   Article
3. Serological Tests in the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
   Article
4. Diagnostic performance and clinical implications of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing in Mexico using real-world nationwide COVID-19 registry data.PloS one · 2021
   Article
5. The Tip of the Spear: Emergency Medicine and Missouri's Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.Missouri medicine
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.2020

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as