ArticleBMJ open2021
Screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic individuals using the Panbio COVID-19 antigen rapid test (Abbott) compared with RT-PCR: a prospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Impact of COVID-19 on football attacking players' match technical performance: a longitudinal study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Engineering Innovative Interfaces for Point-of-Care Diagnostics.Current opinion in colloid & interface science · 2023Review
- The Diagnostic Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Nasal Rapid Antigen Self-Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Evaluation of the Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen detection rapid diagnostic test among healthcare workers in elderly care.PloS one · 2023Article
- Evaluating the Value of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody-Based Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Comparison between Nasal and Nasopharyngeal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection in an Asymptomatic Population, and Direct Confirmation by RT-PCR from the Residual Buffer.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Olfactory Dysfunction in COVID-19 Patients Who Do Not Report Olfactory Symptoms: A Pilot Study with Some Suggestions for Dentists.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Rapid antigen tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A narrative review.Atencion primaria · 2021Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts of individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection: cross sectional study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Article
- Diagnostic performance of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in a large, Norwegian cohort.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntigen-based point-of-care tests for identification of SARS-CoV-2 may markedly enhance effectiveness of population-based controlling strategies. Previous studies have demonstrated >70% sensitivity and high specificity compared with reverse transcriptase real-time PCR (RT-PCR) in symptomatic individuals, but test performance for asymptomatic individuals is unknown.
methodsTest performance of the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) was compared with RT-PCR in a longitudinal cohort study of asymptomatic football players and staff members of professional football clubs. Based on timing of symptoms and prior and subsequent test results, positive RT-PCR tests were categorised as presymptomatic, early or late infection, or persistent RNA shedding.
findings2425 tests were performed in 824 individuals, of which 52 (6.3%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive based on RT-PCR. There were 2406 paired sets from asymptomatic subjects for analysis. Sixteen Panbio tests were inconclusive, for which sensitivity analyses were performed (considering results as either positive or negative or being excluded). Sensitivity of Panbio for screening of asymptomatic individuals ranged from 80.0% (61.4-92.3) to 86.67% (69.2-96.2) and specificity from 99.53% (95% CI 99.2 to 99.8) to 100% (95% CI 99.8 to 100). Sensitivity of Panbio to detect subjects with presymptomatic/early infection (n=42) ranged from 81.82% (95% CI 67.3 to 91.8) to 90.91% (95% CI 78.3 to 97.5) with specificity always above 99%.
interpretationThe Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test identifies 81%-90% of presymptomatic and early asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections with high specificity. This test may therefore be adopted in testing strategies such as targeted screening of specific populations where prevalence is low.
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.