ArticlePloS one2021
Evaluation of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Test Ag Card for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by a local public health district with a rural population.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Performance of self-performed SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Nasal swab is a good alternative sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2 with rapid antigen test: A meta-analysis.Travel medicine and infectious diseasePooled it
- SARS-CoV-2 Point-of-Care Testing Modalities: Integrating Molecular, Immunological, Biosensor, and AI Approaches.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Approaching Gold-Standard Sensitivity in a Portable and Versatile Gold Nanoprisms Thermoplasmonic Platform for Lateral Flow Detection of Biomolecules.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Article
- The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Spatial Care Path: Home, Community, and Emergency Diagnostic Portals.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, the gold standard for diagnostic testing, may not be readily available or logistically applicable for routine COVID-19 testing in many rural communities in the United States. In this validation study, we compared the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card with SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in 214 participants who sought COVID-19 testing from a local public health district in Idaho, USA. The median age of participants was 35 and 82.7% were symptomatic. Thirty-seven participants (17.3%) had positive RT-PCR results. Results between the two tests were 94.4% concordant. The sensitivity of the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card was 67.6% (95% CI: 50.2-81.9%), and the specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 97.9-100.0%). The positive predictive value (PPV) for the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card was 100.0% (95% CI: 86.2-100.0%), and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 93.6% (95% CI: 89.1-96.6%). Although the sensitivity of BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card was lower than RT-PCR, rapid results and high specificity support its use for early detection of COVID-19, especially in settings where SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing is not readily available. Rapid antigen tests, such as the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card, may be a more convenient tool in quickly identifying and preventing COVID-19 transmission, especially in rural settings.
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.