ArticleLaboratory medicine2021
Utility of Antigen-Based Rapid Diagnostic Test for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus in Routine Hospital Settings.
Article in Laboratory medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 6 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- 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 rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression analyzing influencing factors.PLoS medicine · 2022Pooled it
- 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
- Comparative evaluation of RT-PCR and antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection: performance, variant specificity, and clinical implications.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Diagnostic Performance of Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests, Chest Computed Tomography, and Lung Point-of-Care-Ultrasonography for SARS-CoV-2 Compared with RT-PCR Testing: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Comparative analyses of eighteen rapid antigen tests and RT-PCR for COVID-19 quarantine and surveillance-based isolation.Communications medicine · 2022Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for diagnosis of COVID-19 in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis by rapid antigen detection kit with RT-qPCR in a tertiary care setup in North Eastern India.Indian journal of medical microbiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the performance of an antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted on 677 patients. Two nasopharyngeal swabs and 1 oropharyngeal swab were collected from patients. The RDT was performed onsite by a commercially available immune-chromatographic assay on the nasopharyngeal swab. The nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were examined for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by real-time reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay.
resultsThe overall sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 RDT was 34.5% and the specificity was 99.8%. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the test were 96.6% and 91.5%, respectively. The detection rate of RDT in RT-qPCR positive results was high (45%) for cycle threshold values <25.
conclusionThe utility of RDT is in diagnosing symptomatic patients and may not be particularly suited as a screening tool for patients with low viral load. The low sensitivity of RDT does not qualify its use as a single test in patients who test negative; RT-qPCR continues to be the gold standard test.
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.