ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Diagnostic Performance of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test in a Large, German Cohort.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow device sensitivity: a comparison of systematic laboratory assessments with manufacturer-reported sensitivity.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Differential clinical characteristics and performance of home antigen tests between parents and children after household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during the Omicron variant pandemic.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2023Article
- Stick with the nose…Saliva rapid antigen testing is not a viable method for testing children under 5 years old.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2023Article
- Rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2: results of validation and use in real life.Future virology · 2022Article
- Large-scale implementation of rapid antigen testing system for COVID-19 in workplaces.Science advances · 2022Article
- Performance Evaluation of the STANDARDDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We assessed the performance of a rapid antigen test (RAT) in everyday clinical practice. Between 1 November 2020 until 1 April 2021 all in-patients at the Helios University Hospital Wuppertal, Germany, as well as the accompanying relatives at the Children's Hospital received a SARS-CoV-2 RAT and a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR prior to admission. Out of 3686 patients, 22 (0.6%) subjects were tested positive by RT-PCR and RAT, and 3591 (97.4%) were negative by both methods, showing discordant results: RT-PCR+/RAT- in 58 (1.6%) and RT-PCR-/RAT+ in 15 patients (0.4%). Overall sensitivity and specificity of RAT was 27.5% (95%CI 18.1-38.6%) and 99.6% (95%CI 99.3-99.8%), respectively. The sensitivity was slightly higher in adults (30.4%, 95%CI 18.8-90.9%) than in pediatric subjects (20.8%, 95%CI 7.1-42.2%). False negative RAT had a statistically higher Ct-value (
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.