Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34726662›Full record

ArticleLa Medicina del lavoro2021

Application of SARS-CoV-2 Antigenic Test in asymptomatic workers: sensitivity and specificity of the test.

Giovanni Visci, Carlotta Zunarelli, Francesco Violante, Paolo Boffetta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in La Medicina del lavoro, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Giovanni Viscia:1:{s:5:"en_US";s:82:"Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy";}. giovanni.visci6@gmail.com.
Carlotta Zunarelli. carlotta.zunarelli@studio.unibo.it.
Francesco Violante. francesco.violante@unibo.it.
Paolo Boffetta. paolo.boffetta@unibo.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare workers (HCW) are at increased risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2; while PCR test remains gold standard for diagnosis of COVID19 infection, antigen based rapid detection tests have been recently approved by OMS.

methodsWe pooled data on occupational surveillance of 6397 asymptomatic HCW and other employees who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection at the University Hospital in Bologna using rapid antigen test between November 16, 2020 and January 29, 2021.

findingsA total of 17,993 rapid tests were performed, of which 704 for contact with an infected person and 17,289 for voluntary screening. Among 17,732 tests with valid results, 87 tested positive (0.49%) and 17 weakly positive (0.10%). The sensitivity of the antigenic test was 88.6% (81.1-96.1), the specificity was 93.4% (89-97.8), the positive predictive value, given a prevalence of infection of 42.1%, was 90.7% (84.8-96.6).

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2COVID-19 TestingHealth PersonnelHumansSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID34726662
PMCPMC8600576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.