ArticlePloS one2021
Analysis of the specificity of a COVID-19 antigen test in the Slovak mass testing program.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- An Elaboration on Sample Size Planning for Performing a One-Sample Sensitivity and Specificity Analysis by Basing on Calculations on a Specified 95% Confidence Interval Width.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Guideline
- Limitations of point-of-care testing for low SARS CoV-2 loads: Insights for future pandemics.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025Article
- Avoiding False-Positive SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test Results with Point-of-Care Molecular Testing on Residual Test Buffer.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 rapid test versus RT-qPCR on noninvasive respiratory self-samples during a city mass testing campaign.The Journal of infection · 2022Article
- Discourse on COVID-19 Mass Testing vs. Rapid Testing Processing.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Spatial scales, patterns, and positivity trends of SARS-CoV-2 pandemics in mass rapid antigen testing in Slovakia.PloS one · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsMass antigen testing programs have been challenged because of an alleged insufficient specificity, leading to a large number of false positives. The objective of this study is to derive a lower bound of the specificity of the SD Biosensor Standard Q Ag-Test in large scale practical use.
methodsBased on county data from the nationwide tests for SARS-CoV-2 in Slovakia between 31.10.-1.11. 2020 we calculate a lower confidence bound for the specificity. As positive test results were not systematically verified by PCR tests, we base the lower bound on a worst case assumption, assuming all positives to be false positives.
results3,625,332 persons from 79 counties were tested. The lowest positivity rate was observed in the county of Rožňava where 100 out of 34307 (0.29%) tests were positive. This implies a test specificity of at least 99.6% (97.5% one-sided lower confidence bound, adjusted for multiplicity).
conclusionThe obtained lower bound suggests a higher specificity compared to earlier studies in spite of the underlying worst case assumption and the application in a mass testing setting. The actual specificity is expected to exceed 99.6% if the prevalence in the respective regions was non-negligible at the time of testing. To our knowledge, this estimate constitutes the first bound obtained from large scale practical use of an antigen test.
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.