Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34021840›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2021

Clinical evaluation of rapid point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Johannes G M Koeleman, Henk Brand, Stijn J de Man, David S Y Ong

Open access · hybridAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. [From the practice of monitoring SARS-CoV-2 test sites in the city of Cologne].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Johannes G M KoelemanDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Kleiweg 500, 3045 PM, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Henk BrandDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Kleiweg 500, 3045 PM, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Stijn J de ManDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Kleiweg 500, 3045 PM, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
David S Y OngDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Kleiweg 500, 3045 PM, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. davidsyong@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5688-6443
Sint Franciscus Gasthuis · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The RT-qPCR in respiratory specimens is the gold standard for diagnosing acute COVID-19 infections. However, this test takes considerable time before test results become available, thereby delaying patients from being diagnosed, treated, and isolated immediately. Rapid antigen tests could overcome this problem. In the first study, clinical performances of five rapid antigen tests were compared to RT-qPCR in upper respiratory specimens from 40 patients with positive and 40 with negative RTq-PCR results. In the second study, the rapid antigen test with one of the best test characteristics (Romed) was evaluated in a large prospective collection of upper respiratory specimens from 900 different COVID-19-suspected patients (300 emergency room patients, 300 nursing home patients, and 300 health care workers). Test specificities ranged from 87.5 to 100.0%, and test sensitivities from 55.0 to 80.0%. The clinical specificity of the Romed test was 99.8% (95% CI 98.9-100). Overall clinical sensitivity in the study population was 73.3% (95% CI 67.9-78.2), whereas sensitivity in the different patient groups varied from 65.3 to 86.7%. Sensitivity was 83.0 to 86.7% in patients with short duration of symptoms. In a population with a COVID-19 prevalence of 1%, the negative predictive value in all patients was 99.7%. There is a large variability in diagnostic performance between rapid antigen tests. The Romed rapid antigen test showed a good clinical performance in patients with high viral loads (RT-qPCR cycle threshold ≤30), which makes this antigen test suitable for rapid identification of COVID-19-infected health care workers and patients.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care TestingAntigens, ViralCOVID-19COVID-19 Serological TestingHumansProspective StudiesSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityAntigens, ViralCOVID-19Lateral flow immunoassayPOC testRapid antigen testSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID34021840
PMCPMC8140309
OpenAlexW3134416243

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.