Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34936659›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Clinical evaluation of the SD Biosensor SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen rapid test with symptomatic and asymptomatic, non-hospitalized patients.

Zsofia Igloi, Jans Velzing, Robin Huisman, Corine Geurtsvankessel, Anoushka Comvalius, Jeroen IJpelaar, Janko van Beek, Roel Ensing, Timo Boelsums, Marion Koopmans and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Investigation of the diagnostic performance of the SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen test: A meta-analysis.Journal of microbiology, immunology, and infection = Wei mian yu gan ran za zhi · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Prospective study of three saliva qualitative antigen testing kits for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 among mainly symptomatic patients in Japan.Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy · 2023
    Observational
  7. Analysis of diagnostic performance and factors causing nonspecific reactions in SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests.Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen testing in a real-life clinical setting.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zsofia IgloiDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7537-6334
Jans VelzingDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Robin HuismanDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Corine GeurtsvankesselDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Anoushka ComvaliusDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jeroen IJpelaarDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Janko van BeekDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Roel EnsingPublic Health Service Rotterdam-Rijnmond, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Timo BoelsumsPublic Health Service Rotterdam-Rijnmond, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marion KoopmansDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Richard MolenkampDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLGGD Rotterdam-Rijnmond · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerformance of the SD Biosensor saliva antigen rapid test was evaluated at a large designated testing site in non-hospitalized patients, with or without symptoms.

methodAll eligible people over 18 years of age presenting for a booked appointment at the designated SARS-CoV-2 testing site were approached for inclusion and enrolled following verbal informed consent. One nasopharyngeal swab was taken to carry out the default antigen rapid test from which the results were reported back to the patient and one saliva sample was self-taken according to verbal instruction on site. This was used for the saliva antigen rapid test, the RT-PCR and for virus culture. Sensitivity of the saliva antigen rapid test was analyzed in two ways: i, compared to saliva RT-PCR; and ii, compared to virus culture of the saliva samples. Study participants were also asked to fill in a short questionnaire stating age, sex, date of symptom onset. Recommended time of ≥30mins since last meal, drink or cigarette if applicable was also recorded. The study was carried out in February-March 2021 for 4 weeks.

resultsWe could include 789 people with complete records and results. Compared to saliva RT-PCR, overall sensitivity and specificity of the saliva antigen rapid test was 66.1% and 99.6% which increased to 88.6% with Ct ≤30 cutoff. Analysis by days post onset did not result in higher sensitivities because the large majority of people were in the very early phase of disease ie <3 days post onset. When breaking down the data for symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, sensitivity ranged from 69.2% to 50% respectively, however the total number of RT-PCR positive asymptomatic participants was very low (n = 5). Importantly, almost all culture positive samples were detected by the rapid test.

conclusionOverall, the potential benefits of saliva antigen rapid test, could outweigh the lower sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal antigen rapid test in a comprehensive testing strategy, especially for home/self-testing and in vulnerable populations like elderly, disabled or children where in intrusive testing is either not possible or causes unnecessary stress.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedBiosensing TechniquesCarrier StateCOVID-19COVID-19 Serological TestingFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedNasopharynxSalivaSensitivity and SpecificityYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID34936659
PMCPMC8694432
OpenAlexW4200365198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.