ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2022
Performance of a rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 in Kenya.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Association Between Rapid Antigen Detection Tests and Real-Time Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.International journal of public health · 2023Pooled it
- The Performance of a Rapid Coronavirus Disease 2019 Antigen Test in Rural Gabon.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Self-reported COVID-19 severity among persons with tuberculosis infection in western Kenya, 2021.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Assessing time requirements of two models of SARS-CoV-2 screening and testing in routine healthcare services in Kenya and Cameroon: a descriptive study.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- Comparative evaluation of RT-PCR and antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection: performance, variant specificity, and clinical implications.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid diagnostic tests in Nigeria: A cross-sectional study.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- The feasibility and impact of deploying a four-tests panel at antenatal care in primary health care facilities of a developing country, Kenya.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Article
- The Use of Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Test in the Emergency Department as a Decision-Support Tool.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Lessons for improved COVID-19 surveillance from the scale-up of malaria testing strategies.Malaria journal · 2022Review
- Digital health systems strengthening in Africa for rapid response to COVID-19.Frontiers in health services · 2022Article
- Performance differences among commercially available antigen rapid tests for COVID-19 in Brazil.PloS one · 2022Article
- Public-private partnership to rapidly strengthen and scale COVID-19 response in Western Kenya.Frontiers in public health · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in resource-poor settings remains a considerable challenge. Gold standard nucleic acid tests are expensive and depend on availability of expensive equipment and highly trained laboratory staff. More affordable and easier rapid antigen tests are an attractive alternative. This study assessed field performance of such a test in western Kenya. We conducted a prospective multi-facility field evaluation study of NowCheck COVID-19 Ag-RDT compared to gold standard PCR. Two pairs of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected for comparative analysis. With 997 enrolled participants the Ag-RDT had a sensitivity 71.5% (63.2-78.6) and specificity of 97.5% (96.2-98.5) at cycle threshold value <40. Highest sensitivity of 87.7% (77.2-94.5) was observed in samples with cycle threshold values ≤30. NowCheck COVID-19 Ag-RDT performed well at multiple healthcare facilities in an African field setting. Operational specificity and sensitivity were close to WHO-recommended thresholds.
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.