ArticleHeliyon2021
Clinical evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based rapid diagnostic test kit for detection of COVID-19 cases in Bangladesh.
Article in Heliyon, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 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
- Coronavirus Anatomy and Its Analytical Approaches for Targeting COVID-19.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Review
- Designing a sustainable-resilient-responsive supply chain network considering uncertainty in the COVID-19 era.Expert systems with applications · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Testing Strategies in the Diagnosis and Management of COVID-19 Patients in Low-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2023Article
- A Statistical Synopsis of COVID-19 Components and Descriptive Analysis of Their Socio-Economic and Healthcare Aspects in Bangladesh Perspective.Journal of environmental and public health · 2023Article
- Real-World Accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Diagnostic Tests in the Republic of Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
- Factors influencing the performance of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests under field condition.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid and early detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections is key to control the current Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The present study was conducted to clinically evaluate a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) kit, Standard Q COVID-19 Ag Test (SD Biosensor®, Republic of Korea), with reference to the standard real-time RT-PCR for detection of COVID-19 cases in Bangladesh. Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken from 900 COVID-19 suspected patients. Among them, 34.11% (n = 307) were diagnosed as COVID-19 cases by RT-PCR assay, of which 85% (n = 261) were also detectable using the RDT. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the RDT compared to RT-PCR were 85.02% and 100%, respectively, regardless of age, sex, and type of SARS-CoV-2 variants. Most of the RT-PCR positive cases (94%) were found within the first five days of disease onset, and the sensitivity of RDT was 85.91% for the same samples. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the RDT was 100%, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 92.8%. The Cohen's kappa value of 0.882 indicated excellent agreement between the RDT and RT-PCR assays. The findings of this study showed the potential use of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based RDT to expedite the diagnostic process and onward COVID-19 management in Bangladesh.
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.