ArticleMedical microbiology and immunology2021
Evaluation of a laboratory-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay for non-COVID-19 patient screening at hospital admission.
Article in Medical microbiology and immunology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Detection: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Risk tools for predicting long-term sequelae based on symptom profiles after known and undetected SARS-CoV-2 infections in the population.European journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Mental health symptoms and burdens after a SARS-CoV-2 infection.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Automated antigen assays display a high heterogeneity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including several Omicron sublineages.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2023Article
- Performance Evaluation of a BZ COVID-19 NALF Assay for Rapid Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Protective behavior and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in the population - Results from the Gutenberg COVID-19 study.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Rapid Antigen Diagnostics as Frontline Testing in the COVID-19 Pandemic.Small science · 2022Article
- Systematic Review of Diagnostic Accuracy of DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Immunoassay.EJIFCC · 2022Review
- Evaluation of the DiaSorin LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay on nasopharyngeal swabs in two different SARS-CoV-2 pandemic waves in Switzerland: The impact of the Omicron variant on its performance.Journal of clinical virology plus · 2022Article
- Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Evaluation and Validation of the Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Electro-Chemiluminescent Immunoassay in a Southeast Asian Region.Vaccines · 2022Article
- Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Comparison of Rapid and Automated Antigen Detection Tests for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Regulating the product quality of COVID-19 antigen testing reagents: A tripartite evolutionary game analysis under China's legal framework.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Comparison of four commercial, automated antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2021Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Automated SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay in Nasal Swab during COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Clinical Assessment of the DiaSorin LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag Chemiluminescence Immunoassay.EJIFCC · 2021Article
- The Performance of Two Rapid Antigen Tests During Population-Level Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Infection.Frontiers in medicine · 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
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several rapid antigen tests (RATs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 were evaluated recently. However, reliable performance data for laboratory-based, high-throughput antigen tests are lacking. Therefore and in response to a short-term shortage of PCR reagents, we evaluated DiaSorin's LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in comparison to RT-qPCR, and concerning the application of screening non-COVID-19 patients on hospital admission. Applying the manufacturer-recommended cut-off of 200 arbitrary units (AU/mL) the specificity of the LIAISON Test was 100%, the overall analytical sensitivity 40.2%. Lowering the cut-off to 100 AU/mL increased the sensitivity to 49.7% and decreased the specificity to 98.3%. Confining the analysis to samples with an RT-qPCR result < 25 Ct resulted in a sensitivity of 91.2%. The quality of the LIAISON test is very similar to that of good RATs described in the literature with the advantage of high throughput and the disadvantage of relatively long analysis time. It passes the WHO quality criteria for rapid antigen tests and is characterized by particularly high specificity. The LIAISON test can therefore be used for the same applications as recommended for RATs by the WHO. Due to limited sensitivity, the LIAISON test should only be used for screening, if PCR-based assays are not available.
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.