ArticleInfectious disease reports2021
Performance of Qualitative and Quantitative Antigen Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Using Saliva.
Article in Infectious disease reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Prospective study of three saliva qualitative antigen testing kits for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 among mainly symptomatic patients in Japan.Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy · 2023Observational
- SARS-CoV-2 Omicron detection by antigen tests using saliva.Journal of clinical virology plus · 2022Article
- Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A scoping review.Oral diseases · 2022Article
- Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines: diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2022Article
- Evaluation and Validation of the Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Electro-Chemiluminescent Immunoassay in a Southeast Asian Region.Vaccines · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 is critical for the prevention of disease outbreaks. Antigen tests such as immunochromatographic assay (ICA) and chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) can yield results more quickly than PCR. We evaluated the performance of ICA and CLEIA using 34 frozen PCR-positive (17 saliva samples and 17 nasopharyngeal swabs [NPS]) and 309 PCR-negative samples. ICA detected SARS-CoV-2 in only 14 (41%) samples, with positivity rates of 24% in saliva and 59% in NPS. Notably, ICA detected SARS-CoV-2 in 5 of 6 samples collected within 4 days after symptom onset. CLEIA detected SARS-CoV-2 in 31 (91%) samples, with a positivity of 82% in saliva and 100% in NPS. These results suggest that the use of ICA should be limited to an earlier time after symptom onset and CLEIA is more sensitive and can be used in situations where quick results are required.
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.