Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35225407›Full record

ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2022

Effectiveness and use of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction point of care testing in a large-scale COVID-19 surveillance system.

Christina D Mack, Erin B Wasserman, Christopher J Hostler, Gary Solomon, Deverick J Anderson, Patti Walton, Kalyani Hawaldar, Emily Myers, Michele Best, Daniel Eichner and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing (December 2023).Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Christina D MackReal World Solutions, IQVIA, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Erin B WassermanReal World Solutions, IQVIA, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Christopher J HostlerDuke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Gary SolomonPlayer Health and Safety Department, National Football League, New York City, New York, USA.
Deverick J AndersonDuke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Patti WaltonLaboratory Services and Occupational Health, Williamson Medical Center, Franklin, Tennessee, USA.
Kalyani HawaldarReal World Solutions, IQVIA, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Emily MyersPlayer Health and Safety Department, National Football League, New York City, New York, USA.
Michele BestDepartment of Pathology, University of Maryland Medical System, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Daniel EichnerSports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratory, University Research Park, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Thom MayerSchool of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Allen SillsPlayer Health and Safety Department, National Football League, New York City, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRapid COVID-19 testing platforms can identify infected individuals at the point of care (POC), allowing immediate isolation of infected individuals and reducing the risk of transmission. While lab-based nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is often considered the gold standard to detect SARS-CoV-2 in the community, results typically take 2-7 days to return, rendering POC testing a critical diagnostic tool for infection control. The National Football League (NFL) and NFL Players Association deployed a new POC testing strategy using a newly available reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) rapid test during the 2020 season, and evaluated diagnostic effectiveness compared to other available devices using real-world population surveillance data.

methodsRT-PCR POC test results were compared to NAAT results from same-day samples by calculation of positive and negative concordance. Sensitivity analyses were performed for three subgroups: (1) individuals symptomatic at time of positive test; (2) individuals tested during the pilot phase of rollout; and (3) individuals tested daily.

resultsAmong 4989 same-day POC/NAAT pairs, 4957 (99.4%) were concordant, with 93.1% positive concordance and 99.6% negative concordance. Based on adjudicated case status, the false negative rate was 0.2% and false positive rate was 2.9%. In 43 instances, the immediate turnaround of results by POC allowed isolation of infected individuals 1 day sooner than lab-based testing. Positive/negative concordance in sensitivity analyses were relatively stable.

conclusionRT-PCR POC testing provided timely results that were highly concordant with lab-based NAAT in population surveillance. Expanded use of effective RT-PCR POC can enable rapid isolation of infected individuals and reduce COVID-19 infection in the community.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansPoint-of-Care TestingReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and Specificityagile analyticsCOVID-19diagnostic concordancediagnosticsemergency use authorizationinfectious disease surveillancepoint-of-care testingreal-world datareal-world evidenceSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35225407
PMCPMC9088538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.