ArticleInfection2022
Rapid comparative evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests.
Article in Infection, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A multi-country phase 2 study to evaluate the suitcase lab for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 in seven Sub-Saharan African countries: Lessons from the field.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2023Trial
- Clinical Evaluation and Comparison of Two Microfluidic Antigenic Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Ten rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 widely differ in their ability to detect Omicron-BA.4 and -BA.5.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2023Article
- A Reagent and Virus Benchmarking Panel for a Uniform Analytical Performance Assessment of N Antigen-Based Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Scalable RT-LAMP-based SARS-CoV-2 testing for infection surveillance with applications in pandemic preparedness.EMBO reports · 2023Article
- Role of population and test characteristics in antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, Czechia, August to November 2021.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this study was to develop a scalable approach for direct comparison of the analytical sensitivities of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) to rapidly identify poor-performing products.
methodsWe present a methodology for quick assessment of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs suitable for quality evaluation of many different products. We established reference samples with high, medium, and low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads along with a SARS-CoV-2 negative control sample. Test samples were used to semi-quantitatively assess the analytical sensitivities of 32 different commercial AgPOCTs in a head-to-head comparison.
resultsAmong 32 SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs tested, we observe sensitivity differences across a broad range of viral loads (9.8 × 10
conclusionThe results show that the rapid sensitivity assessment procedure presented here provides useful estimations on the analytical sensitivities of 32 AgPOCTs and identified a widely-spread AgPOCT with concerningly low sensitivity.
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.