ArticleSemergen
[Evaluation of the diagnostic test for rapid detection of covid-19 antigen (Panbio Covid rapid test) in primary care].
Article in Semergen. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Direct Nasal Swab for Rapid Test and Saliva as an Alternative Biological Sample for RT-PCR in COVID-19 Diagnosis.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Diagnostic accuracy and feasibility of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in general practice - a prospective multicenter validation and implementation study.BMC primary care · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCOVID-19 infection requires early diagnosis, with PCR being the gold standard test. The protocols advocate the use of rapid antigenic tests that require evaluation in actual clinical practice. The objective was to evaluate the diagnostic test for rapid antigen detection, Panbio Covid rapid test, compared with PCR, in patients with symptoms of 5 or less days of evolution and with a high-suspicion of infection by COVID-19 in a health center. MATERIALS AND
methods103 patients over 14 years of age who attended an urban health center located in the Usera District of Madrid, with high-suspicion of COVID-19 infection, in the first 5 days of evolution from the onset of symptoms during the month of November 2020.
interventionsdiagnostic tests for COVID-19 are performed: antigen and PCR.
resultsThe prevalence of the disease was 24.3% according to the PCR test and 17.5% according to the rapid antigenic test. The sensitivity was 72% (95% CI: 54.3-89.6%). The specificity was 100%. The positive and negative predictive values were 100% and 91.8% respectively. In the bivariate analysis, there was no relationship between symptoms and the presence of disease, except for myalgias (p=0.030). The multivariate analysis found a relationship between cough, dyspnea, fever, myalgia, anosmia/ageusia, and ocular symptoms and the presence of disease.
conclusionsThe sensitivity and specificity for the Panbio rapid antigen test are similar to other studies performed in primary care. In high-prevalence of disease and with highly suspected symptoms, positive test results can be considered definitive, but negative results will require confirmation. Myalgia, fever, dyspnea, anosmia/ageusia, and ocular symptoms may be more related to the presence of COVID-19.
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.