Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35363814›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Rapid screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Good performance of nasopharyngeal and Nasal Mid-Turbinate swab for antigen detection among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.

Paola Sicilia, Gonzalo Castro, Anabella Clara Fantilli, Robertino Gierotto, Laura López, María Gabriela Barbás, María Belén Pisano, Viviana Elizabeth Ré

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paola SiciliaÁrea Biología Molecular, Laboratorio Central, Ministerio de Salud de la Provincia de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
Gonzalo CastroÁrea Biología Molecular, Laboratorio Central, Ministerio de Salud de la Provincia de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0002-0984-3835
Anabella Clara FantilliInstituto de Virología "Dr. J.M. Vanella", Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0003-0742-4116
Robertino GierottoÁrea Biología Molecular, Laboratorio Central, Ministerio de Salud de la Provincia de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
Laura LópezÁrea Epidemiología, Ministerio de Salud de la Provincia de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
María Gabriela BarbásSecretaría de Prevención y Promoción de la Salud, Ministerio de Salud de la Provincia de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
María Belén PisanoInstituto de Virología "Dr. J.M. Vanella", Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
Viviana Elizabeth RéInstituto de Virología "Dr. J.M. Vanella", Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0002-4106-6642
Ministerio de Salud · ARConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, the Nasal Mid-Turbinate swab (NMTS) is often used due to its higher tolerance among patients. We compared the diagnostic performance of the NPS and the NMTS for the Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). Two hundred and forty-three individuals were swabbed three times by healthcare professionals: a NMTS and a NPS specimen for the Ag-RDT and an oropharyngeal swab for real time RT-PCR. Forty-nine participants were RNA-SARS-CoV-2 positive by real time RT-PCR: 45 and 40 were positive by the Ag-RDT with NPS and NMTS, respectively. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 91.8% (95% CI: 83.2-100.0) and 99.5% (95% CI: 98.2-100.0) for Ag-RDT with NPS, and 81.6% (95% CI: 69.8-93.5) and 100.0% (95% CI: 99.7-100.0) for the Ag-RDT with NMTS. The Cohen's kappa index was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85-0.98). Among asymptomatic individuals, the Ag-RDT with both sampling techniques showed a high sensitivity [100.0% (95% CI: 95.5-100.0) with NPS; 90.9% (95% CI: 69.4-100.0) with NMTS], while the performance of the test decreased in samples with Ct≥ 30 and in patients tested after the first 7 days from symptom onset. Although the NMTS yielded a lower sensitivity compared to NPS, it might be considered a reliable alternative, as it presents greater adherence among patients, enabling scaling of antigen testing strategies, particularly in countries with under-resourced health systems.

Indexed as

COVID-19Antigens, ViralHumansSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityTurbinatesAntigens, Viral

Identifiers

PMID35363814
PMCPMC8986327
OpenAlexW4220917123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.