ArticlePloS one2021
Evaluation of the clinical performance of a magnetic force-assisted electrochemical immunoassay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigens.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association Between Rapid Antigen Detection Tests and Real-Time Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.International journal of public health · 2023Pooled it
- The role of electrochemical biosensors in SARS-CoV-2 detection: a bibliometrics-based analysis and review.RSC advances · 2022Review
- Article
- Evaluation of Analytical Performances of Magnetic Force-Assisted Electrochemical Sandwich Immunoassay for the Quantification of Carcinoembryonic Antigen.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid antigen (Ag) tests for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) provide quick results, do not require specialized technical skills or infrastructure, and can be used as a point-of-care method to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The performance of a magnetic force-assisted electrochemical immunoassay-based test, namely the MARK-B COVID-19 Ag test (BBB, Sungnam, Republic of Korea), was evaluated using 170 nasopharyngeal swab specimens and compared to that of RT-PCR and commercial rapid Ag test (STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test, SD Biosensor, Suwon-si, Republic of Korea). The overall sensitivity and specificity of the MARK-B test were 90.0% (95% CI 79.4%-96.2%) and 99.0% (95% CI 95.0%-99.9%), respectively, with a kappa coefficient of 0.908. The correlations between the electrical current values of MARK-B and the Ct values of RT-PCR were -0.898 (E gene, 95% CI -0.938 to -0.834) and -0.914 (RdRp gene, 95% CI -0.948 to -0.860), respectively. The limit of detection of the MARK-B was measured using the viral culture reference samples and found to be 1 x 102 pfu/mL. The magnetic force-assisted electrochemical immunoassay-based Ag test can be used to rapidly detect SARS-CoV-2 infections, and the corresponding fully automated portable device can provide easy readability and semi-quantitative results.
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.