ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Rapid Test Ag 2019-nCoV (PROGNOSIS, BIOTECH, Larissa, Greece); Performance Evaluation in Hospital Setting with Real Time RT-PCR.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy Tests of COVID-19.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Performance Evaluation of a Rapid Antigen Test (RAT) during Omicron Pandemic Wave in Greece, Conducted by Different Personnel, and Comparison with Performance in Previous Wave (Alpha Variant) Period.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Negative Predictive Value of the Rapid Test Ag 2019-nCoV During the Predominance of Omicron over the Delta Variant and Implications in the Emergency Department.SN comprehensive clinical medicine · 2022Article
- 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRapid antigen tests (RATs) are convenient for SARS-CoV-2 detection because they are simpler and faster than nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs). This study aimed to assess the accuracy of a locally manufactured test; Rapid Test Ag 2019-nCoV (PROGNOSIS, BIOTECH, Larissa, Greece) in a clinical setting and during mass screening.
methodsNasopharyngeal samples from 624 individuals were analyzed. The results of the rapid test were compared to real-time reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). At the end of the test's procedure, positive test strips were scanned in an S-Flow reader in order to roughly estimate the antigen concentration.
resultsThe lower limit of detection of the test was 468.75 genome copies/mL. The PROGNOSIS rapid test displayed a sensitivity of 85.5% (141/165) (95%CI: 79.1-90.5) and a specificity of 99.8% (458/459) (95%CI: 98.8-100.0%). The general inter-rater agreement was 0.89 (95%CI: 85.1-93.3). The regression analysis between the S-flow reader measurements (viral antigen) and the viral load of the positive samples demonstrated a weak correlation (R
conclusionThe Rapid Test Ag 2019-nCoV demonstrated sufficient sensitivity, excellent specificity and could be available to be used with low overall cost. Thus, it could be used as point of care test, but also for mass screening for rapid detection of infected persons (e.g., for travelers).
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.