Observational studyBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2021
Performance of the Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test in the Liverpool asymptomatic testing pilot: population based cohort study.
Observational study in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 9 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
54 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 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
- Comparing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling with molecular and professional-use tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of testing, contact tracing and isolation interventions among the general population on reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2023Pooled 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
- Update of Guidelines for Laboratory Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Korea.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2022Guideline
- 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
- Lateral flow test performance in children for SARS-CoV-2 using anterior nasal and buccal swabbing: sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values.Archives of disease in childhood · 2023Trial
- Considerations for epidemiological studies investigating emerging post-acute infection syndromes: Long Covid as a case study.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Effectiveness and user experience of nose and throat swabbing techniques for SARS-CoV-2 detection: results from the UK COVID-19 National Testing Programme.BMC global and public health · 2025Article
- Efficacy of rapid antigen self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 screening: Real-world evidence from a prospective cohort study.Genes & diseases · 2024Article
- Faster detection of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases among care home staff in England through the combination of SARS-CoV-2 testing technologies.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- COVID-19 risk mitigation in reopening mass cultural events: population-based observational study for the UK Events Research Programme in Liverpool City Region.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2024Observational
- Self-tests for COVID-19: What is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023).PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- How science and policy came together and made a global impact: The EU common list of COVID-19 antigen tests.Open research Europe · 2024Article
- Validation of a MALDI-TOF MS Method for SARS-CoV-2 Detection on the Bruker Biotyper and Nasopharyngeal Swabs: A Brazil-UK Collaborative Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Optimized workplace risk mitigation measures for SARS-CoV-2 in 2022.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Modelling the impact of repeat asymptomatic testing policies for staff on SARS-CoV-2 transmission potential.Journal of theoretical biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the performance of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test (LFT) versus polymerase chain reaction testing in the asymptomatic general population attending testing centres.
designObservational cohort study.
settingCommunity LFT pilot at covid-19 testing sites in Liverpool, UK.
participants5869 asymptomatic adults (≥18 years) voluntarily attending one of 48 testing sites during 6-29 November 2020.
interventionsParticipants were tested using both an Innova LFT and a quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) test based on supervised self-administered swabbing at testing sites.
main outcome measuresSensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of LFT compared with RT-qPCR in an epidemic steady state of covid-19 among adults with no classic symptoms of the disease.
resultsOf 5869 test results, 22 (0.4%) LFT results and 343 (5.8%) RT-qPCR results were void (that is, when the control line fails to appear within 30 minutes). Excluding the void results, the LFT versus RT-qPCR showed a sensitivity of 40.0% (95% confidence interval 28.5% to 52.4%; 28/70), specificity of 99.9% (99.8% to 99.99%; 5431/5434), positive predictive value of 90.3% (74.2% to 98.0%; 28/31), and negative predictive value of 99.2% (99.0% to 99.4%; 5431/5473). When the void samples were assumed to be negative, a sensitivity was observed for LFT of 37.8% (26.8% to 49.9%; 28/74), specificity of 99.6% (99.4% to 99.8%; 5431/5452), positive predictive value of 84.8% (68.1% to 94.9%; 28/33), and negative predictive value of 93.4% (92.7% to 94.0%; 5431/5814). The sensitivity in participants with an RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) of <18.3 (approximate viral loads >10
conclusionsThe Innova LFT can be useful for identifying infections among adults who report no symptoms of covid-19, particularly those with high viral load who are more likely to infect others. The number of asymptomatic adults with lower Ct (indicating higher viral load) missed by LFT, although small, should be considered when using single LFT in high consequence settings. Clear and accurate communication with the public about how to interpret test results is important, given the chance of missing some cases, even at high viral loads. Further research is needed to understand how infectiousness is reflected in the viral antigen shedding detected by LFT versus the viral loads approximated by RT-qPCR.
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.