ArticlePloS one2022
Rapid screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection with a combined point-of-care antigen test and an immunoglobulin G antibody test.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical application of SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection and monoclonal antibody therapies against COVID-19.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Review
- COVID-19 rapid molecular point-of-care testing is effective and cost-beneficial for the acute care of trauma patients.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid screening and diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 in the emergency department is important for controlling infections. When polymerase chain reaction tests cannot be rapidly performed, rapid antigen testing is often used, albeit with insufficient sensitivity. Therefore, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of combining rapid antigen and antibody test results. This was a retrospective review of patients who visited our emergency department between February and May 2021 and underwent rapid antigen, immunoglobulin G antibody, and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction tests. The study included 1,070 patients, of whom 56 (5.2%) tested positive on reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of rapid antigen testing were 73.7%, 100.0%, and 0.87, respectively. The combined rapid antigen and antibody test result had improved diagnostic accuracy, with 91.2% sensitivity, 97.9% specificity, and an area under the curve of 0.95. The results of the rapid antigen and antibody tests could be combined as a reliable alternative to reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction.
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.