ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2021
Limited Sensitivity of a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Assay for Surveillance of Asymptomatic Individuals in Thailand.
Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 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
- 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
- Colorimetric RT-LAMP for SARS-CoV-2 detection from nasopharyngeal swabs or crude saliva: a multicountry diagnostic accuracy study in Africa.The Lancet. Global health · 2025Article
- The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Spatial Care Path: Home, Community, and Emergency Diagnostic Portals.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and is a global pandemic. Therefore, rapid and accurate tests for SARS-CoV-2 screening are urgently needed to expedite disease prevention and control especially in community transmission. Since late December 2020, Thailand has faced a new wave of COVID-19 outbreaks. The Thai National Disease Control program at the Ministry of Public Health has identified suitable measure for mass screening. A SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based assay is a surveillance option for active cases. Here, we evaluated the feasibility and test performance of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen test during our field activities in 1,100 asymptomatic individuals in Samut Sakhon, Thailand, during the second wave COVID-19 outbreak (December 26-30, 2020). The results showed that the rapid antigen test had a sensitivity of 47.97% (95% CI: 36.10-59.96%) and a specificity of 99.71% (95% CI: 99.15-99.94%) versus standard reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. The rapid test performed better in cases with higher viral loads determined by the cycle threshold value. In real-world setting, the test performance can be compromised by several factors including viral loads, logistic chains, temperature, technical expertise of the operators, validity, and accuracy of the testing itself. Our study highlights a prerequisite for reevaluation of any given testing before implementing it at the national level.
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.