ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Performance Evaluation of the STANDARD
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Performance of a Rapid Coronavirus Disease 2019 Antigen Test in Rural Gabon.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Use of strips of rapid diagnostic tests as a source of ribonucleic acid for genomic surveillance of viruses: an example of SARS-CoV-2.Virology journal · 2024Article
- The diagnostic performance evaluation of Panbio and STANDARD Q coronavirus disease 2019 antigen tests against real-time polymerase chain reaction in southern Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Development and Clinical Performance of InteliSwabViruses · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Testing Strategies in the Diagnosis and Management of COVID-19 Patients in Low-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2023Article
- Clinical Performance of Self-Collected Nasal Swabs and Antigen Rapid Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Resource-Poor Settings.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Laboratory-based molecular assays are the gold standard to detect SARS-CoV-2. In resource-limited settings, the implementation of these assays has been hampered by operational challenges and long turnaround times. Rapid antigen detection tests are an attractive alternative. Our aim is to evaluate the clinical performance of two SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests during a high transmission period. (2) Methods: A total of 1277 patients seeking SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis were enrolled at four health facilities. Nasopharyngeal swabs for rapid antigen and real time PCR testing were collected for each patient. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, misclassification rate, and agreement were determined. (3) Results: The overall sensitivity of Panbio COVID-19 was 41.3% (95% CI: 34.6-48.4%) and the specificity was 98.2% (95% CI: 96.2-99.3%). The Standard Q had an overall sensitivity and specificity of 45.0% (95% CI: 39.9-50.2%) and 97.6% (95% CI: 95.3-99.0%), respectively. The positive predictive value of a positive test was 93.3% and 95.4% for the Panbio and Standard Q Ag-RDTs, respectively. A higher sensitivity of 43.2% and 49.4% was observed in symptomatic cases for the Panbio and Standard Q Ag-RDTs, respectively. (4) Conclusions: Despite the overall low sensitivity, the two evaluated rapid tests are useful to improve the diagnosis of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections during high transmission periods.
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.