ArticleCureus2021
Comparative Evaluation of Nasopharyngeal and Oropharyngeal Swab Based Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection and Real-Time RT-PCR for Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Tertiary Care Hospital.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive SARS-CoV-2 screening tests: a national prospective analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Trial
- Clinical Validation of GenBody COVID-19 Ag, Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Rapid Antigen Tests for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in European Adult Population.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Performance & clinical utility of oropharyngeal versus nasopharyngeal swabs in COVID-19.The Indian journal of medical research · 2022Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test among military and civilian personnel of an Air Force airport in central Italy.PloS one · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of the GenBody COVID-19 Antigen kit (GenBody Inc., Cheonan, South Korea) available in the market with the gold standard reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2).
methodsNasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were collected from suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and tested by RT-PCR and GenBody Rapid antigen kit. Performance characteristic of the antigen kit was calculated.
resultsWe tested nasopharyngeal swabs and oropharyngeal swabs (n=240). Amongst the 102 positive RT-PCR samples, the rapid antigen test detected 36 as positive, showing an overall sensitivity of 35.3%. All the samples detected positive with the antigen rapid test were also detected positive by RT-PCR.
conclusionThe performance of the rapid antigen kit was good with respect to high viral load samples, whereas those with lower levels were missed. Unfortunately, the overall low sensitivity of the antigen kit does not allow using it alone as the frontline testing kit for COVID-19 diagnosis.
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.