ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2022
Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen test for COVID-19 in an emergency department.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2022. 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Virology journal · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation of CLINITEST® Rapid Covid-19 + Influenza antigen test in a cohort of symptomatic patients in an emergency department.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of COVID-19 rapid antigen test against polymerase chain reaction test in immunocompromised patients.PloS one · 2024Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Control Measures in the Emergency Department: The Role of Rapid Antigenic Testing in Asymptomatic Subjects.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Use of antigen tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 has become widespread. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the nasopharyngeal rapid antigen diagnostic (RAD) immunoassay LumiraDx UK in an Emergency Department (ED). All patients admitted to our ED between November 11 and December 8, 2020, and had both a RAD test and a real-time-reverse-transcription-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) test were enrolled. RAD was considered as the index test and RT-PCR test was used as the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and likelihood ratios were calculated with the 95% confidence interval. The sensitivity and specificity of RAD were 34.2% and 92.3%. Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 4.4 and 0.71. Our results demonstrate that the diagnostic accuracy of the LumiraDx RAD test is too low for routine use as a diagnostic method in the ED.
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.