ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2022
Clinical Evaluation of the Rapid STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test for the Screening of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 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
- 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
- Prevalence and determinants of tuberculosis and COVID-19 among patients with presumptive tuberculosis in a Nigerian tertiary hospital.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test using SERS-based lateral flow immunoassay.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Field evaluations of four SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests during SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant wave in South Africa.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance of a SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A/B Combo Rapid Antigen Test in Respiratory Samples.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Four Rapid Antigen Tests for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection with Nasopharyngeal Swabs.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Clinical Evaluation of an Antigen Home Test Using Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy and Stacking Pad for SARS-CoV-2 Screening with Nasal and Salivary Swab Samples.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Clinical Evaluation of Two Rapid Antigen Tests for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Detection.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2023Article
- Direct Nasal Swab for Rapid Test and Saliva as an Alternative Biological Sample for RT-PCR in COVID-19 Diagnosis.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Positivity of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2 With Serial Followed-up Nasopharyngeal Swabs in Hospitalized Patients due to COVID-19.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Nasal Cavity and Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Detection via Rapid Antigen Test According to Specimen Collection Timing and Viral Load.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis by rapid antigen detection kit with RT-qPCR in a tertiary care setup in North Eastern India.Indian journal of medical microbiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standard tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detect the presence of viral RNA using real-time reverse transcription (rRT)-PCR. Recently, convenient, rapid, and relatively inexpensive SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) detection methods have been developed. The STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag test (SD Biosensor, Inc., Suwon, Korea) is a rapid immunochromatography test that qualitatively detects the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2 using gold conjugated antibodies. We evaluated its performance in comparison with that of Allplex 2019-nCoV Assay (Seegene, Seoul, Korea) in a retrospective case-control study using residual samples. The sensitivity and specificity of the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag test were 89.2% (58/65) and 96.0% (96/100), respectively. Cycle threshold (Ct) values for the three target SARS-CoV-2 genes (envelope, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, and nucleocapsid genes) included in Allplex 2019-nCoV Assay were significantly lower in Ag test-positive patients than in Ag test-negative patients (
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.