ArticleJournal of virological methods2021
Performance evaluation of automated chemiluminescence immunoassay based antigen detection - Moving towards more reliable ways to predict SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Article in Journal of virological methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 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
- The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing (January 2023).Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Guideline
- Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Virology journal · 2024Pooled it
- Safety, immunogenicity, and breakthrough infections during 1-year follow-up after COVISHIELD™ vaccination among healthcare workers in a teaching institute in North India: A prospective longitudinal study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy Tests of COVID-19.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Critical literature review and pooled analysis of diagnostic accuracy of Ortho VITROS SARS-CoV-2 antigen test for diagnosing acute SARS-CoV-2 infections.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2022Article
- Rapid Antigen Diagnostics as Frontline Testing in the COVID-19 Pandemic.Small science · 2022Article
- Development of magnetic particle-based chemiluminescence immunoassay for measurement of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein.Journal of virological methods · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Automated SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay in Nasal Swab during COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Effect of storage temperatures simulating transport conditions of nasopharyngeal swabs on the results of a chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen.Indian journal of medical microbiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Real-time reverse transcription- polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been the most reliable armoury for the diagnosis of COVID-19, considered to be the reference standard but fails to reproduce the correct predictability about the infectivity of the disease every time. Antigen detection however puts foothold in this aspect even though lacks in sensitivity, especially conventional Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs). Recently developed Chemiluminescence Immunoassay (CLIA) based antigen detection tests are promising and displayed better sensitivity. In the current study we have evaluated VITROS® SARS-CoV-2 Ag Test CLIA Kit, which was tested on 148 patient's samples attended to a tertiary care centre for testing of SARS-CoV-2. The performance of the kit was evaluated in comparison to RT-PCR and RAT and found to be a good test for antigen detection, best within the first few days of infection. The test has shown sensitivity of 94.3 % and specificity of 100 % in samples with corresponding Ct values of ≤25 by RT-PCR, which corresponds to high viral load and can predict ability of spreading the disease by the patients. With the results being semiquantitative along with improved sensitivity it can replace RATs for antigen detection for screening, provided good laboratory set up is included under consideration.
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.