Rapid antigen test had up to 98% sensitivity and 100% specificity for detecting COVID-19 in persons with mild symptoms.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Clinical Manifestations of Acute COVID-19 in Previously Healthy Pediatric Patients Diagnosed by Rapid Antigen Screening in a Community-Based, Outpatient Primary Care Pediatrics Practice.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
   Article
2. Computed tomography-positive, SARS-CoV-2 RNA-negative symptomatic contacts of COVID-19 patients: what are their nature and implications?Future virology · 2021
   Article
3. Swab and Sputum SARS-CoV-2 RNA-Negative, CT-Positive, Symptomatic Contacts of COVID-19 Cases: A Hypothesis-Generating Prospective Population-Based Cohort Study of Eight Clusters.Frontiers in medicine · 2021
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Real-life validation of the Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen rapid test (Abbott) in community-dwelling subjects with symptoms of potential SARS-CoV-2 infection.2021

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract