ArticlePloS one2021
An optimized stepwise algorithm combining rapid antigen and RT-qPCR for screening of COVID-19 patients.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression analyzing influencing factors.PLoS medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Dogs' Detection of Symptomatic and Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 by Non-Working Dogs: Feasibility and Limits Under Controlled Laboratory Conditions.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimWe investigated the combination of rapid antigen detection (RAD) and RT-qPCR assays in a stepwise procedure to optimize the detection of COVID-19.
methodsFrom August 2020 to November 2020, 43,399 patients were screened in our laboratory for COVID-19 diagnostic by RT-qPCR using nasopharyngeal swab. Overall, 4,691 of the 43,399 were found to be positive, and 200 were retrieved for RAD testing allowing comparison of diagnostic accuracy between RAD and RT-qPCR. Cycle threshold (Ct) and time from symptoms onset (TSO) were included as covariates.
resultsThe overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, LR-, and LR+ of RAD compared with RT-qPCR were 72% (95%CI 62%-81%), 99% (95% CI95%-100%), 99% (95%CI 93%-100%), and 78% (95%CI 70%-85%), 0.28 (95%CI 0.21-0.39), and 72 (95%CI 10-208) respectively. Sensitivity was higher for patients with Ct ≤ 25 regardless of TSO: TSO ≤ 4 days 92% (95%CI 75%-99%), TSO > 4 days 100% (95%CI 54%-100%), and asymptomatic 100% (95%CI 78-100%). Overall, combining RAD and RT-qPCR would allow reducing from only 4% the number of RT-qPCR needed.
conclusionsThis study highlights the risk of misdiagnosing COVID-19 in 28% of patients if RAD is used alone. A stepwise analysis that combines RAD and RT-qPCR would be an efficient screening procedure for COVID-19 detection and may facilitate the control of the outbreak.
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.