ArticleJournal of clinical virology plus2021
Evaluation of the Roche antigen rapid test and a cell culture-based assay compared to rRT- PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A contribution to the discussion about SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests and contagiousness.
Article in Journal of clinical virology plus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Daily SARS-CoV-2 Nasal Antigen Tests Miss Infected and Presumably Infectious People Due to Viral Load Differences among Specimen Types.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the DiaSorin LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay on nasopharyngeal swabs in two different SARS-CoV-2 pandemic waves in Switzerland: The impact of the Omicron variant on its performance.Journal of clinical virology plus · 2022Article
- Relationship of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen and Reverse Transcription PCR Positivity for Viral Cultures.Emerging infectious diseases · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The most sensitive method to detect SARS-CoV-2 relies on rRT-PCR; however, viral RNA can be detected weeks/months after clinical resolution. Since rRT-PCR cannot discern between non- and infectious virus, it is unclear whether the presence of viral RNA after recovery reflects infectious SARS-CoV-2. However, recent studies suggest a positive correlation between antigen rapid tests (Ag-RDT) and virus isolation that is more suited to assess contagiousness. Objectives: To assess the utility of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests in different settings we evaluated the performance of Ag-RDT-based and a cell culture-based SARS-CoV-2 assay in comparison to rRT-PCR. Study design: A total of 61 Nasopharyngeal-Swabs tested positive by cobas Results: SARS-CoV-2 was successfully isolated in 51/61 samples corresponding to 83.6%, which was 97.3% or 96.2% when considering samples with E-gene Ct-value <25 and <28, respectively. In comparison, the Ag-RDT showed an overall sensitivity of 85.2%, that increased to 100% and 96.2% using an E-gene Ct-value cut-off of <25 and <28, respectively. There was an overall good agreement between the commercial Ag-RDT and our in-house cell culture-based SARS-CoV-2 detection assay. However, SARS-CoV-2 could be isolated from two samples that tested negative by Ag-RDT. Conclusions: Our results support the use of the Roche Ag-RDT to detect SARS-CoV-2 exposure in large scale populations. However, it is recommended to use rRT-PCR, potentially in conjunction with cell culture-based SARS-CoV-2 assay, to support clinicians in making decisions regarding fragile patient groups.
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.