ArticleJournal of medical virology2021
Rapid COVID-19 antigenic tests: Usefulness of a modified method for diagnosis.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04610489 (Diagnostic Performance of an Antigen Test for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Diagnostic Performance of an Antigen Test for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection (COVID-19)
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled 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
- Epidemiological and clinical profiles of respiratory syncytial virus infections in hospitalized children: a retrospective cohort study utilizing targeted next-generation sequencing.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025Article
- Progress in Biosensors for the Point-of-Care Diagnosis of COVID-19.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Comparison between Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection in an Asymptomatic Population, and Direct Confirmation by RT-PCR from the Residual Buffer.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Clinical evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based rapid diagnostic test kit for detection of COVID-19 cases in Bangladesh.Heliyon · 2021Article
- Use of emerging testing technologies and approaches for SARS-CoV-2: review of literature and global experience in an Australian context.Pathology · 2021Review
- Rapid COVID-19 antigenic tests: Usefulness of a modified method for diagnosis.Journal of medical virology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current reliable recommended test for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis is quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Rapid antigen test devices could be useful as they are less expensive, faster without the need of specialized laboratories to perform the test. We report the performances of two rapid immunochromatographic antigen testing devices compared with RT-qPCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection in nasopharyngeal samples. We carried out a lateral-flow tests study on 401 nasopharyngeal swab samples from nonduplicated suspected COVID-19 subjects. An equal volume of universal transport medium tubes-containing samples (dilution ratio = 1:15) were added to the manufacturer's extraction buffer solution (dilution ratio = 1:2) and analyzed on BioSpeedia COVID19Speed-Antigen Test and on Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, devices. Qualitative results were compared to those obtained by the RT-qPCR (Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 Assay Seegene). Based on our data, the overall sensitivity for BioSpeedia and Panbio devices was estimated at 65.5% and 75.0%, respectively. The sensitivity was greater for cycle threshold values less than 25 achieving 90.4 and 96.8 for BioSpeedia and Panbio devices, respectively. A perfect specificity of 100.0% was observed for both devices.
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.