ArticleInternational journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases2021
Evaluation of the AMP SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in a hospital setting.
Article in International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Evolution of the newest diagnostic methods for COVID-19: a Chinese perspective.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2023Review
- Performance study of the anterior nasal AMP SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in comparison with nasopharyngeal rRT-PCR.Access microbiology · 2022Article
- Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Spatial Care Path: Home, Community, and Emergency Diagnostic Portals.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The importance of disease prevalence in clinical decision making: a real practice study on COVID-19 antigen test in Curacao.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious DiseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesQuick and inexpensive SARS-CoV-2 screening and frontline testing are in growing demand. Our study aimed to evaluate the performance of the immunochromatographic AMP rapid antigen test (AMP RAT) compared to the gold-standard real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) in a hospital cohort.
methodsA total of 392 patients, who presented consecutively with COVID-19 symptoms in our emergency department, were included in this retrospective study. Two swabs were collected per patient: a nasopharyngeal for the RAT and a combined naso- and oropharyngeal for the rRT-PCR. A positive rRT-PCR (defined as cycle threshold (Ct) < 40) was found in 94 (24%) patients.
resultsIn our cohort with a median patient age of 70, overall sensitivity and specificity of the AMP RAT was 69.2% (58.8-78.3, 95% CI) and 99.7% (98.1-100.0, 95% CI), respectively. In patients with a Ct value < 25 and < 30, higher sensitivities of 100.0% (89.4-100.0, 95% CI) and 91.8% (81.9-97.3%, 95% CI) were observed.
conclusionsThe AMP RAT showed a high sensitivity in patients with a Ct value < 25 and < 30 and might be helpful for frontline testing whenever rRT-PCR is not readily available.
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.