ArticleInternational journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases2021
Comparative evaluation of four SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests in hospitalized patients.
Article in International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Managing hematological cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: an ESMO-EHA Interdisciplinary Expert Consensus.ESMO open · 2022Guideline
- Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2021Pooled it
- How to identify respiratory pathogens in primary health care - a review on the benefits, prospects and pitfalls in using point of care tests.Infection · 2025Review
- Article
- Evaluation of CLINITEST® Rapid Covid-19 + Influenza antigen test in a cohort of symptomatic patients in an emergency department.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Article
- A Comparative Analysis of Molecular Biological Methods for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Testing the In Vitro Infectivity of the Virus.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Clinical Evaluation and Comparison of Two Microfluidic Antigenic Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- RT-LAMP Multicenter Study for SARS-CoV-2 Genome Molecular Detection in Brazilian Swab and Saliva Samples.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Comparing lateral flow testing with a rapid RT-PCR method for SARS-CoV-2 detection in the United Kingdom-A retrospective diagnostic accuracy study.Health science reports · 2022Article
- Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines: diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Performance of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test in relation to RT-PCR CAdvances in virology · 2022Article
- Performance evaluation of automated chemiluminescence immunoassay based antigen detection - Moving towards more reliable ways to predict SARS-CoV-2 infection.Journal of virological methods · 2021Article
- Rapid, Cheap, and Effective COVID-19 Diagnostics for Africa.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Clinical evaluation of rapid point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021Article
- Applications of laboratory findings in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of COVID-19.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2021Review
- 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
- Coronavirus Disease 2019: Clinics, Treatment, and Prevention.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRapid identification of infected subjects is a cornerstone for controlling a pandemic like the current one with the SARS-CoV-2. Easy to handle antigen tests can provide timely results, which is of particular importance in a primary care setting. However, concerns exist regarding their sensitivity, which led us to evaluate four commercially available tests in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.
methodsWe analyzed in parallel nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs from 154 consecutive patients admitted to our department with moderate to severe COVID-19, using quantitative RT-PCR (Cobas, Roche) and up to four antigen tests from different distributors. Antigen test results were linked to Ct (cycle threshold) values as markers for patients' infectivity.
resultsWe found that two out of four antigen tests correctly identified subjects with high viral loads (Ct≤25), and three out of four tests detected more than 80% of subjects with a Ct≤30, which is considered the threshold for infectivity. However, one test investigated had a poor clinical performance. When investigating subjects with Ct values >30, we found that the antigen test was still positive in up to 45% of those cases.
conclusionMost antigen tests had a sufficient sensitivity to identify symptomatic subjects infected with SARS-CoV-2 and with transmissible infection. On the other hand, antigen testing may not be suitable to identify loss of infectivity in COVID-19 subjects during follow-up. Newly introduced antigen tests need to be validated in a clinical or primary care setting to define their clinical usefulness.
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.