Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33455451›Full record

ArticleBiomarkers : biochemical indicators of exposure, response, and susceptibility to chemicals2021

SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid immunoassay for diagnosis of COVID-19 in the emergency department.

Martin Möckel, Victor M Corman, Miriam S Stegemann, Jörg Hofmann, Angela Stein, Terry C Jones, Petra Gastmeier, Joachim Seybold, Ralf Offermann, Ulrike Bachmann and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomarkers : biochemical indicators of exposure, response, and susceptibility to chemicals, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.5field-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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Tests: Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Literature.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Martin MöckelDepartment of Emergency and Acute Medicine, Campus Mitte and Virchow, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7691-3709
Victor M CormanInstitute of Virology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3605-0136
Miriam S StegemannDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Respiratory Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7968-0429
Jörg HofmannInstitute of Virology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Angela SteinLabor Berlin - Charité Vivantes GmbH, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Terry C JonesInstitute of Virology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1120-9531
Petra GastmeierInstitute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Joachim SeyboldMedical Directorate, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Ralf OffermannDepartment of Emergency and Acute Medicine, Campus Mitte and Virchow, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Ulrike BachmannDepartment of Emergency and Acute Medicine, Campus Mitte and Virchow, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Tobias LindnerDepartment of Emergency and Acute Medicine, Campus Mitte and Virchow, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Wolfgang BauerDepartment of Emergency and Acute Medicine, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Christian DrostenInstitute of Virology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Alexander RosenDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pulmonology Immunology and Critical Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Rajan SomasundaramDepartment of Emergency and Acute Medicine, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DE

Funding

NIH HHS HHSN272201400008C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the emergency department (ED) setting, rapid testing for SARS-CoV-2 is likely associated with advantages to patients and healthcare workers, for example, enabling early but rationale use of limited isolation resources. Most recently, several SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests (AGTEST) became available. There is a growing need for data regarding their clinical utility and performance in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the real life setting EDs.

methodsWe implemented AGTEST (here: Roche/SD Biosensor) in all four adult and the one paediatric EDs at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin in our diagnostic testing strategy. Test indication was limited to symptomatic suspected COVID-19 patients. Detailed written instructions on who to test were distributed and testing personnel were trained in proper specimen collection and handling. In each suspected COVID-19 patient, two sequential deep oro-nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained for viral tests. The first swab was collected for nucleic acid testing through SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcriptase (rt)-PCR diagnostic panel (PCRTEST) in the central laboratory. The second swab was collected to perform the AGTEST. Analysis of routine data was prospectively planned and data were retrieved from the medical records after the inclusion period in the adult or paediatric ED. Diagnostic performance was calculated using the PCRTEST as reference standard. False negative and false positive AGTEST results were analysed individually and compared with viral concentrations derived from the calibrated PCRTEST.

resultsWe included

conclusionsWe conclude that the use of AGTEST among symptomatic patients in the emergency setting is useful for the early identification of COVID-19, but patients who test negative require confirmation by PCRTEST and must stay isolated until this result becomes available. Adult patients with a false negative AGTEST and symptom onset at least one week earlier have typically a low SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentration and are likely no longer infectious.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalAntigens, ViralCOVID-19HumansImmunoassaySARS-CoV-2Antigens, ViralCOVID-19emergency departmentrapid antigen testrt-PCRSARS-CoV-2virus concentration

Identifiers

PMID33455451
PMCPMC7898296
OpenAlexW3124577795

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.