ArticleVirology journal2021
Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based rapid diagnostic kits in Pakistan: formulation of COVID-19 national testing strategy.
Article in Virology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Piloting an external quality assurance program (QAP) for COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs): findings and lessons learned from Cambodia.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Global emergence of Langya virus: A serious public health concern.Journal of global health · 2023Article
- Clinical Evaluation of Commercial HARDSON COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test Kit for Routine COVID-19 Diagnosis.Infectious diseases & clinical microbiology · 2023Article
- Direct Nasal Swab for Rapid Test and Saliva as an Alternative Biological Sample for RT-PCR in COVID-19 Diagnosis.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A scoping review.Oral diseases · 2022Article
- An Assessment of a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test in Bangladesh.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2022Article
- Article
- Field evaluation of seven SARS-COV-2 antigen assays.Journal of infection and public health · 2022Article
- Seroprevalence of Sars-Cov-2 antibodies among eligible blood donors of Peshawar, Pakistan.American journal of blood research · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 induced hepatic injuries and liver complications.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Review
- Clinical Evaluation of a New Antigen-Based COVID-19 Rapid Diagnostic Test from Symptomatic Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Clinical evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based rapid diagnostic test kit for detection of COVID-19 cases in Bangladesh.Heliyon · 2021Article
- Current diagnostic approaches to detect two important betacoronaviruses: Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).Pathology, research and practice · 2021Review
- SARS-CoV-2 Spike Antibody Levels Trend among Sinopharm Vaccinated People.Iranian journal of public health · 2021Article
- Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Detection by Rapid Antigen and by Three Commercial RT-qPCR Tests: A Study from Martin University Hospital in Slovakia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 during pandemic enables timely treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Evaluating the accuracy and reliability of rapid diagnostic testing kits is crucial for surveillance and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections in general population, injection drug users, multi-transfused populations, healthcare workers, prisoners, barbers and other high risk populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate performance and effectiveness of nasopharyngeal swab (NSP) and saliva based rapid antigen detection testing kits in comparison with USFDA approved triple target gold standard real-time polymerase chain reaction. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 33,000 COVID-19 suspected patients. From RT-PCR positive patients, nasopharyngeal swab (NSP) and saliva samples were obtained for evaluation of rapid COVID-19 testing kits (RDT). 100/33,000 (0.3%) of specimens were RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2. Among RT-PCR positive, 62% were males, 34% were females, and 4% were children. The NSP-RDT (Lepu Medical China) analysis revealed 53% reactivity among males, 58% reactivity among females, and 25% reactivity among children. However saliva based RDT (Lepu Medical China) analysis showed 21% reactivity among males and 23% among females, and no reactivity in children. False negative results were significantly more pronounced in saliva based RDT as compared to NSP-RDT. The sensitivity of these NSP-RDT and saliva based RDT were 52% and 21% respectively. The RDTs evaluated in this study showed limited sensitivities in comparison to gold standard RT-PCR, indicating that there is a dire need in Pakistan for development of suitable testing to improve accurate COVID-19 diagnosis in line with national demands.
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.