ArticleViruses2021
Comparison of Antigen Tests and qPCR in Rapid Diagnostics of Infections Caused by SARS-CoV-2 Virus.
Article in Viruses, 2021. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing (January 2023).Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Guideline
- An alternative method for SARS-CoV-2 detection with use modified fluorescent in situ hybridization.AMB Express · 2024Article
- Extraction-Free Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Viral RNA Using LumiraDx's RNA Star Complete Assay from Clinical Nasal Swabs Stored in a Novel Collection and Transport Medium.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Field evaluation of COVID-19 rapid antigen test: Are rapid antigen tests less reliable among the elderly?World journal of clinical cases · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Diagnostics of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using molecular techniques from the collected respiratory swab specimens requires well-equipped laboratory and qualified personnel, also it needs several hours of waiting for results and is expensive. Antigen tests appear to be faster and cheaper but their sensitivity and specificity are debatable. The aim of this study was to compare a selected antigen test with quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) tests results. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from 192 patients with COVID-19 symptoms. All samples were tested using Vitassay qPCR SARS-CoV-2 kit and the Humasis COVID-19 Ag Test (MedSun) antigen immunochromatographic test simultaneously. Ultimately, 189 samples were tested; 3 samples were excluded due to errors in taking swabs. The qPCR and antigen test results were as follows: 47 positive and 142 negative, and 45 positive and 144 negative, respectively. Calculated sensitivity of 91.5% and specificity of 98.6% for the antigen test shows differences which are not statistically significant in comparison to qPCR. Our study showed that effectiveness of the antigen tests in rapid laboratory diagnostics is high enough to be an alternative and support for nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) in the virus replication phase in the course of COVID-19.
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.