Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34230058›Full record

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.

Marta García-Fiñana, David M Hughes, Christopher P Cheyne, Girvan Burnside, Mark Stockbridge, Tom A Fowler, Veronica L Fowler, Mark H Wilcox, Malcolm G Semple, Iain Buchan

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2024
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marta García-FiñanaDepartment of Health Data Science, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK martaf@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4939-0575
David M HughesDepartment of Health Data Science, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Christopher P CheyneDepartment of Health Data Science, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Girvan BurnsideDepartment of Health Data Science, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Mark StockbridgeDepartment of Health and Social Care, London, UK.
Tom A FowlerDepartment of Health and Social Care, London, UK.
Veronica L FowlerDepartment of Health and Social Care, London, UK.
Mark H WilcoxLeeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Malcolm G SempleNIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections and Institute of Translational Medicine, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Iain BuchanInstitute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
University of Liverpool · GBDepartment of Health and Social Care · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R024847/1
6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19 Nucleic Acid TestingCOVID-19 Serological TestingAdultCarrier StateCohort StudiesCOVID-19FemaleHumansMalePilot ProjectsPredictive Value of TestsReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionROC CurveUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID34230058
PMCPMC8259455
OpenAlexW3181128283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.