Trial reportPloS one2021
Evaluation of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests, AFIAS COVID-19 Ag and ichroma COVID-19 Ag, with serial nasopharyngeal specimens from COVID-19 patients.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association Between Rapid Antigen Detection Tests and Real-Time Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.International journal of public health · 2023Pooled it
- 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
- A Targeted LC-MRMMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2024Article
- The Impact of Repeating COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Tests on Prevalence Boundary Performance and Missed Diagnoses.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Rapid Antigen Tests during the COVID-19 Era in Korea and Their Implementation as a Detection Tool for Other Infectious Diseases.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Real-World Accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Diagnostic Tests in the Republic of Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
- Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Setting-specific variability of false-positive result rates with rapid testing for SARS-CoV-2 antigen.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2022Article
- Reliable and Scalable SARS-CoV-2 qPCR Testing at a High Sample Throughput: Lessons Learned from the Belgian Initiative.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection with Ageusia after Two mRNA Vaccine Doses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Clinical Accuracy of Instrument-Read SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests (Ag-IRRDTs).International journal of microbiology · 2022Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test among military and civilian personnel of an Air Force airport in central Italy.PloS one · 2022Article
- Clinical Evaluation of a New Antigen-Based COVID-19 Rapid Diagnostic Test from Symptomatic Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Article
- Blood cancer care in a resource limited setting during the Covid-19 outbreak; a single center experience from Sri Lanka.PloS one · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of two newly developed, point-of-care, rapid antigen tests (RATs) for detecting SARS-CoV-2, the AFIAS COVID-19 Ag and the ichromaTM COVID-19 Ag, and investigated antigen kinetics. A total of 200 serially collected nasopharyngeal (NP) specimens from 38 COVID-19 patients and 122 specimens from negative controls were analyzed. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were assessed in comparison to molecular test results and subdivided according to targeted genes (E, RdRP, and N) and days post-symptom onset (PSO). For the kinetics evaluation, cut-off-indices from serial NP specimens were used according to the number of days PSO. Both RATs showed sensitivity of 91.3‒100% for specimens with cycle threshold (Ct) < 25. The specificity of AFIAS was 98.7‒98.9% and that of ichromaTM was 100.0%. The kappa values of AFIAS and ichromaTM for the molecular testing of specimens with Ct < 25 (RdRP) were 0.97 and 1.00, respectively. The sensitivity of AFIAS and ichromaTM for all genes was lower for specimens collected at 8‒14 PSO than for those collected before 7-days PSO. The kinetics profiles showed that antigen levels gradually decreased from ≤ 7-days PSO to > 22-days PSO. Both RATs showed excellent specificity and acceptable sensitivity for NP specimens with higher viral loads and for specimens collected within 7-days PSO. Hence, they have the potential to become useful tools for the early detection of SARS-CoV-2. However, because of concerns about false negativity, RATs should be used in conjunction with molecular tests.
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.