ArticleScientific reports2021
Feasibility of large-scale population testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection by self-testing at home.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability of self-sampling and self-testing for infections: a rapid systematic review on public users' views.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 seroassay sensitivity: a systematic review and modelling study.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluation of COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing in Lesotho and Zambia.PloS one · 2024Article
- Knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection and proper use of rapid diagnostic self-test among Shanghai residents in China.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Point of care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and neutralisation capacity-lateral flow immunoassay evaluation compared to commercial assay to inform potential role in therapeutic and surveillance practices.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Lateral Flow Immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Feasibility of home-based ELISA capillary blood self-testing for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.Practical laboratory medicine · 2022Article
- Good ingredients from foods to vegan cosmetics after COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2022Review
- Evaluation of Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Related to Self-Testing Procedure against COVID-19 among Greek Students: A Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Usability of an At-Home Anterior Nares SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Sample Collection Kit: Human Factors Feasibility Study.JMIR human factors · 2021Article
- Assessment of the Field Utility of a Rapid Point-of-Care Test for SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in a Household Cohort.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 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
16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The simplicity and low cost of rapid point-of-care tests greatly facilitate large-scale population testing, which can contribute to controlling the spread of the COVID-19 virus. We evaluated the applicability of a self-testing strategy for SARS-CoV2 in a population-based, cross-sectional study in Cantabria, Spain, between April and May 2020. For the self-testing strategy, participants received the necessary material for the self-collection of blood and performance of a rapid antibody test using lateral flow immunoassay at home without the supervision of healthcare personnel. A total of 1,022 participants were enrolled. Most participants correctly performed the COVID-19 self-test the first time (91.3% [95% CI 89.4-92.9]). Only a minority of the participants (0.7%) needed the help of healthcare personnel, while 6.9% required a second kit delivery, for a total valid test result in 96.9% of the participants. Incorrect use of the self-test was not associated with the educational level, age over 65, or housing area. Prevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV2 for subjects with a valid rapid test result was 3.1% (95% CI 2.2-4.4), similar to the seroprevalence result obtained using a conventional approach carried out by healthcare professionals. In conclusion, COVID-19 self-testing should be considered as a screening tool.
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.