ArticleIrish journal of medical science2022
Evaluation of ECLIA antigen detection tests as screening methods for COVID-19 in comparison with molecular analysis.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Virology journal · 2024Pooled it
- Rational design and high-yield expression of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen for a sensitive and specific in-house ELISA.BMC biotechnology · 2026Article
- Clinical and molecular fingerprint of SARS-CoV-2 among hospital employees in a period of Omicron BA.2 dominance.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData from literature shows that antigen tests are rapid and helpful tools for diagnosis of COVID-19.
aimThis work aimed to evaluate the performances of the Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen test, in comparison to RT-qPCR, the gold standard.
methodsA total of 110 swabs were tested; according to rRT-PCR, 76 were positive, and 34 were negative. The swabs were processed by Elecsys SARS CoV 2 Antigen assay (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany), an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA).
resultsIn a first evaluation, the overall sensitivity and specificity were 85% and 100%, respectively. It was noted that most of the discordant cases had cycle threshold (Ct) values > 28. Therefore, it was assumed a new measure to evaluate sensitivity and specificity, then samples with Ct values < 28 were selected. In this way, it was achieved a Ct < 28 sensitivity of 94%. The level of agreement between the two tests was 89. 1% with κ value of 0.77 for total data and 95.9% with κ value of 0.95 for samples with < 28 Ct. The antigen test performs well in the presence of high viral loads, whereas lower levels are missed.
conclusionsThe comparison data obtained in this study support that this method seems a proper approach for rapid screening of patients with high SARS-CoV-2 viral load; however, the rate of sensitivity is highly Ct-dependent.
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.