ArticleInfection prevention in practice2021
Real-world deployment of lateral flow SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in the emergency department to provide rapid, accurate and safe diagnosis of COVID-19.
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpretable machine learning and signal processing for automated reading and quality control of lateral flow tests for schistosomiasis.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Interpretable machine learning and signal processing for automated reading and quality control of lateral flow tests for schistosomiasis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- The Use of Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Test in the Emergency Department as a Decision-Support Tool.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Spatial Care Path: Home, Community, and Emergency Diagnostic Portals.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Highly Sensitive and Quantitative Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Using a Gold/Platinum Particle-Based Lateral Flow Assay and a Desktop Scanning Electron Microscope.Biomedicines · 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
20 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPoint-of-care (POC) SARS-CoV-2 lateral-flow antigen detection (LFD) testing in the emergency department (ED) could inform rapid infection control decisions but requirements for safe deployment have not been fully defined.
methodsReview of LFD test results, laboratory and POC-RT-PCR results and ED-performance metrics during a two-week high SARS-CoV-2 prevalence period followed by several months of falling prevalence.
aimDetermine whether LFD testing can be safely deployed in ED to provide an effective universal SARS-CoV-2 testing capability.
findings93% (345/371) of COVID-19 patients left ED with a virological diagnosis during the 2-week universal LFD evaluation period compared to 77% with targeted POC-RT-PCR deployment alone, on background of approximately one-third having an NHS Track and Trace RT-PCR test-result at presentation. LFD sensitivity and specificity was 70.7% and 99.1% respectively providing a PPV of 97.7% and NPV of 86.4% with disease prevalence of 34.7%. ED discharge-delays (breaches) attributable to COVID-19 fell to 33/3532 (0.94%) compared with the preceding POC-RT-PCR period (107/4114 (2.6%); p=<0.0001). Importantly, LFD testing identified 1 or 2 clinically-unsuspected COVID-19 patients/day. Three clinically-confirmed LFD false positive patients were appropriately triaged based on LFD action-card flowchart, and only 5 of 95 false-negative LFD results were inappropriately admitted to non-COVID-19 areas where no onward-transmission was identified. LFD testing was restricted to asymptomatic patients when disease prevalence fell below 5% and detected 1-3 cases/week.
conclusionUniversal SARS-CoV-2 LFD testing can be safely and effectively deployed in ED alongside POC-RT-PCR testing during periods of high and low disease prevalence.
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.