ArticleLa Medicina del lavoro2021
Low sensitivity of rapid tests detecting anti-CoV-2 IgG and IgM in health care workers' serum for COVID-19 screening.
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 4 papers.
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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- COVID-19 Marked a Change in the Scope of Occupational Medicine from Occupational to Work-Related Diseases and Total Worker Health®.La Medicina del lavoro · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 infection: use and effectiveness of antigenic swab for the health surveillance of healthcare workers.La Medicina del lavoro · 2021Observational
- Advanced CRISPR-Cas Effector Enzyme-Based Diagnostics for Infectious Diseases, Including COVID-19.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundthe sensitivity and specificity of a rapid antibody test were investigated for the screening of healthcare workers.
methodsthe serum of 389 health care workers exposed to COVID-19 patients or with symptoms, were analysed. All workers underwent monthly the screening for SARS-CoV-2 with detection of viral RNA in nasopharyngeal swabs by RT-PCR. IgG antibody detection in serum was performed by Chemiluminescence Immunoassay (CLIA) and by the Rapid test (KHB diagnostic kit for SARS CoV-2 IgM/IgG antibody after a median of 7.6 weeks (25°-75° percentiles 6.6-11.5).
resultsthe rapid test resulted positive in 31/132 (23.5%), 16/135 (11.8%) and 0/122 cases in COVID-19 positive individuals, in those with only SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies and in those negative for both tests, respectively. Sensitivity was 17.6% (CI95% 13.2-22.7) and 23.5% (CI95% 16.5-31.6), and specificity was 100% (CI95% 97-100) and 100% (CI95% 97-100) considering Rapid test vs CLIA IgG or Rapid test vs SARS-CoV-2 positive RNA detection, respectively.
conclusionthe KHB Rapid test is not suitable for the screening of workers with previous COVID-19 infection.
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.