ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Diagnostic Performance of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2: The COVid-19 AntiGen (COVAG) study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Vitamin DFrontiers in oral health · 2026Trial
- Assessment of Rapid Antigen Diagnostic Tests at Mass Events: Identifying Optimal Floor Plan Configurations for Enhanced Efficiency.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Taqman PACMAN: a simple molecular approach for positive rapid antigen test confirmation during periods of low prevalence.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- The sensitivity and specificity of Abbott Panbio™ COVID 19 Ag Rapid test in the context of four SARS-CoV-2 variants.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid diagnostic tests in Nigeria: A cross-sectional study.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Diagnostic performance of rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2: the COVid-19 AntiGen (COVAG) extension study.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- The Impact of Repeating COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Tests on Prevalence Boundary Performance and Missed Diagnoses.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Regional Evaluation of Two SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests in East Africa.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- The role of SARS-CoV-2 N protein in diagnosis and vaccination in the context of emerging variants: present status and prospects.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of the Panbio COVID-19 antigen rapid test device for SARS-CoV-2 detection in Kenya, 2021: A field evaluation.PloS one · 2023Article
- Validation of a rapid, saliva-based, and ultra-sensitive SARS-CoV-2 screening system for pandemic-scale infection surveillance.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Self-Sampled Gargle Water Direct RT-LAMP as a Screening Method for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infections.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Panbio™ rapid antigen diagnostic tests in a 4,440-case clinical follow-up.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2: The COVid-19 AntiGen (COVAG) study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
13 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rapid diagnostic testing for SARS-Cov-2 antigens is used to combat the ongoing pandemic. In this study we aimed to compare two RDTs, the SD Biosensor Q SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche) and the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott), against rRT-PCR. Methods: We included 2,215 all-comers at a diagnostic center between February 1 and March 31, 2021. rRT-PCR-positive samples were examined for SARS-CoV-2 variants. Findings: Three hundred and thirty eight participants (15%) were rRT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. The sensitivities of Roche-RDT and Abbott-RDT were 60.4 and 56.8% ( Interpretation: The sensitivities of the two RDTs for asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers are unsatisfactory. Their widespread use may not be effective in the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The virus genotype influences the sensitivity of the two RDTs. RDTs should be evaluated for different SARS-CoV-2 variants.
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.