ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Role of Rapid Antigen Testing in Population-Based SARS-CoV-2 Screening.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- A population-based study of the trend in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic modalities from the beginning of the pandemic to the Omicron surge in Kyoto City, Kyoto, Japan.BMC public health · 2023Observational
- Importance of external quality assessment for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection during the COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2022Article
- Avoiding False-Positive SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test Results with Point-of-Care Molecular Testing on Residual Test Buffer.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Rapid Diagnostic Testing for SARS-CoV-2.The New England journal of medicine · 2022Review
- Utilization of rapid antigen tests for screening SARS-CoV-2 prior to dental treatment.Frontiers in oral health · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates a population-based screening of asymptomatic people, using a rapid antigen diagnostic test (RADT), in areas of high transmission. To detect sources of SARS-CoV-2 infection, nasopharyngeal samples were taken and were tested using RADT. Confirmatory RT-qPCR tests were performed in both positive and negative cases. The internal validity of the RADT, the prevalence of infection, and the positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were estimated, based on the percentages of confirmed cases with 95% confidence interval. Of the 157,920 people registered, 50,492 participated in the screening; 50,052 were negative, and 440 were positive on the RADT (0.87%). A total of 221 positive RADT samples were reanalysed using RT-qPCR and 214 were confirmed as positive (96.8%; 95% CI: 93.5-98.7%), while 657 out of 660 negative RADT samples were confirmed as RT-qPCR negative (99.5%; 95% CI 98.7-99.9%). The sensitivity obtained was 65.1% (38.4-90.2%) and the specificity was 99.97% (99.94-99.99%). The prevalence of infection was 1.30% (0.95-2.13%). The PPVs were 95.4% (85.9-98.9%) and 97.9% (93.3-99.5%), respectively, while the NPVs were 99.7% (99.4-100%) and 99.2% (98.7-100%), respectively. The high specificity found allow us to report a high screening performance in asymptomatic patients, even in areas where the prevalence of infection was less than 2%.
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.