ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2022
Factors influencing the performance of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests under field condition.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled 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 Rapid Antigen Test Based on a New Anti-Nucleocapsid Protein Monoclonal Antibody: Development and Real-Time Validation.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- A Reagent and Virus Benchmarking Panel for a Uniform Analytical Performance Assessment of N Antigen-Based Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection by saliva; an alternative to nasopharyngeal specimen: A cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Comparative analysis of SARS-CoV-2 detection methods using stool, blood, and nasopharyngeal swab samples.The Pan African medical journal · 2023Article
- 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
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGlobally, real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) is the reference detection technique for SARS-CoV-2, which is expensive, time consuming, and requires trained laboratory personnel. Thus, a cost-effective, rapid antigen test is urgently needed. This study evaluated the performance of the rapid antigen tests (RATs) for SARS-CoV-2 compared with rRT-PCR, considering different influencing factors.
methodsWe enrolled a total of 214 symptomatic individuals with known COVID-19 status using rRT-PCR. We collected and tested paired nasopharyngeal (NP) and nasal swab (NS) specimens (collected from same individual) using rRT-PCR and RATs (InTec and SD Biosensor). We assessed the performance of RATs considering specimen types, viral load, the onset of symptoms, and presenting symptoms.
resultsWe included 214 paired specimens (112 NP and 100 NS SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR positive) to the analysis. For NP specimens, the average sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the RATs were 87.5%, 98.6%, and 92.8%, respectively, when compared with rRT-PCR. While for NS, the overall kit performance was slightly lower than that of NP (sensitivity 79.0%, specificity 96.1%, and accuracy 88.3%). We observed a progressive decline in the performance of RATs with increased Ct values (decreased viral load). Moreover, the RAT sensitivity using NP specimens decreased over the time of the onset of symptoms.
conclusionThe RATs showed strong performance under field conditions and fulfilled the minimum performance limit for rapid antigen detection kits recommended by World Health Organization. The best performance of the RATs can be achieved within the first week of the onset of symptoms with high viral load.
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.