ArticleBioMed research international2021
The Challenge of Using an Antigen Test as a Screening Tool for SARS-CoV-2 Infection in an Emergency Department: Experience of a Tertiary Care Hospital in Southern Italy.
Article in BioMed research international, 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Virology journal · 2024Pooled it
- Temperature-Responsive Liposome-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Using Immunoliposomes.ACS omega · 2022Article
- The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Spatial Care Path: Home, Community, and Emergency Diagnostic Portals.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- What is the true place of the SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen test in the hospital setting? Lessons learned from real life.Journal of medical virology · 2022Article
- A SARS-CoV-2 Negative Antigen Rapid Diagnostic in RT-qPCR Positive Samples Correlates With a Low Likelihood of Infectious Viruses in the Nasopharynx.Frontiers in microbiology · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn emergency hospital settings, rapid diagnosis and isolation of SARS-CoV-2 patients are required. The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of an antigen chemiluminescence enzymatic immunoassay (CLEIA) and compare it with that of Real-time Reverse transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-qPCR), the gold standard assay, to assess its suitability as a rapid diagnostic method for managing patients in the emergency department (ED).
methodsConsecutive patients with no previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection attending the ED of the Policlinico Hospital of Bari between 23rd October and 4th November 2020 were enrolled. Clinical and demographic data were collected for all patients. Nasopharyngeal swabs collected on admission were subjected both to molecular (RT-qPCR) and antigen (CLEIA) tests for SARS-CoV-2. The performance of the CLEIA antigen test was analyzed using R Studio software and Microsoft Excel. Receiver operating characteristics were also performed.
resultsA total of 911 patients were enrolled, of whom 469 (51.5%) were male. Of the whole cohort, 23.7% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR and 24.5% by CLEIA. The overall concordance rate was 96.8%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the antigen test were 94.9% (95% CI, 91.9-97.0), 97.4% (95% CI, 96.5-98.1), 91.9% (95% CI, 89.0-94.0), and 98.4% (95% CI, 97.4-99.1), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.99. The kappa coefficient was 0.91. The overall positive and negative likelihood ratios were 37 (95% CI 23-58) and 0.05 (95% CI, 0.03-0.09), respectively.
conclusionsData analysis demonstrated that the antigen test showed very good accuracy for discriminating SARS-CoV-2-infected patients from negative participants. The CLEIA is suitable for rapid clinical diagnosis of patients in hospital settings, particularly in EDs with a high prevalence of symptomatic patients and where a rapid turnaround time is critical. Timely and accurate testing for SARS-CoV-2 plays a crucial role in limiting the spread of the virus.
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.