Trial reportPloS one2021
The Abbott PanBio WHO emergency use listed, rapid, antigen-detecting point-of-care diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2-Evaluation of the accuracy and ease-of-use.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 7 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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing (January 2023).Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Guideline
- 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 SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Tests for Community Transmission Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- A systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of lateral flow devices in the detection of SARS-CoV-2.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Accuracy and ease-of-use of seven point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting tests: A multi-centre clinical evaluation.EBioMedicine · 2022Trial
- Testing for SARS-CoV-2: lessons learned and current use cases.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2024Review
- The diagnostic performance evaluation of Panbio and STANDARD Q coronavirus disease 2019 antigen tests against real-time polymerase chain reaction in southern Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The New Normal: Delayed Peak SARS-CoV-2 Viral Loads Relative to Symptom Onset and Implications for COVID-19 Testing Programs.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Article
- The New Normal: Delayed Peak SARS-CoV-2 Viral Loads Relative to Symptom Onset and Implications for COVID-19 Testing Programs.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of the Panbio COVID-19 antigen rapid test device for SARS-CoV-2 detection in Kenya, 2021: A field evaluation.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines: diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in comparison to RT-PCR targeting different genes: A real-life evaluation among unselected patients in a regional hospital of Italy.Journal of medical virology · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern B.1.1.7: Diagnostic Sensitivity of Three Antigen-Detecting Rapid Tests.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDiagnostics are essential for controlling the pandemic. Identifying a reliable and fast diagnostic device is needed for effective testing. We assessed performance and ease-of-use of the Abbott PanBio antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT).
methodsThis prospective, multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study enrolled at two sites in Germany. Following routine testing with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), a second study-exclusive swab was performed for Ag-RDT testing. Routine swabs were nasopharyngeal (NP) or combined NP/oropharyngeal (OP) whereas the study-exclusive swabs were NP. To evaluate performance, sensitivity and specificity were assessed overall and in predefined sub-analyses accordingly to cycle-threshold values, days after symptom onset, disease severity and study site. Additionally, an ease-of-use assessment (EoU) and System Usability Scale (SUS) were performed.
results1108 participants were enrolled between Sept 28 and Oct 30, 2020. Of these, 106 (9.6%) were PCR-positive. The Abbott PanBio detected 92/106 PCR-positive participants with a sensitivity of 86.8% (95% CI: 79.0% - 92.0%) and a specificity of 99.9% (95% CI: 99.4%-100%). The sub-analyses indicated that sensitivity was 95.8% in Ct-values <25 and within the first seven days from symptom onset. The test was characterized as easy to use (SUS: 86/100) and considered suitable for point-of-care settings.
conclusionThe Abbott PanBio Ag-RDT performs well for SARS-CoV-2 testing in this large manufacturer independent study, confirming its WHO recommendation for Emergency Use in settings with limited resources.
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.