Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35409513›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Rapid Antigen Test LumiraDx

Anna Maria Cattelan, Lolita Sasset, Federico Zabeo, Anna Ferrari, Lucia Rossi, Maria Mazzitelli, Silvia Cocchio, Vincenzo Baldo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. The Implementation and Role of Antigen Rapid Test for COVID-19 in Hemodialysis Units.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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 1 institution in 1 country.

Anna Maria CattelanInfectious and Tropical Diseases Unit, Azienda Ospedale Università di Padova, 35128 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2869-2945
Lolita SassetInfectious and Tropical Diseases Unit, Azienda Ospedale Università di Padova, 35128 Padova, Italy.
Federico ZabeoDepartment of Cardiac Thoracic and Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padova, 35127 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6321-7272
Anna FerrariInfectious and Tropical Diseases Unit, Azienda Ospedale Università di Padova, 35128 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6924-6306
Lucia RossiMicrobiology Department, Azienda Ospedale Università di Padova, 35128 Padova, Italy.
Maria MazzitelliInfectious and Tropical Diseases Unit, Azienda Ospedale Università di Padova, 35128 Padova, Italy.
Silvia CocchioDepartment of Cardiac Thoracic and Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padova, 35127 Padova, Italy.
Vincenzo BaldoDepartment of Cardiac Thoracic and Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padova, 35127 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6012-9453
University of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (real time RT-PCR) testing is the gold standard for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, to expand the testing capacity, new SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (Ag-RDTs) have been implemented. Ag-RDTs are more rapid, but less reliable in terms of sensitivity, and real-life data on their performance in comparison with the real time RT-PCR test are lacking. Methods: We aimed at assessing the diagnostic performance of the third-generation antigenic swab LumiraDx™ compared with real time RT-PCR in a retrospective cohort study at the Infectious Diseases Unit of Padua. All of the patients who were consecutively tested for SARS-CoV-2 in our centre (by both real time RT-PCR and Ag-RTD LumiraDxTM) from 19 January to 30 May 2021, were included. Cycle-threshold (Ct) values of positive real time RT-PCR were recorded as well as the number of days from symptoms’ onset to testing. Results: Among the 282 patients included, 80.9% (N = 228) tested positive to real time RT-PCR, and among these, 174 tested positive also to LumiraDx™. Compared with real time RT-PCR, which is considered as the gold standard for the assessment of the presence/absence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, LumiraDx™ showed an overall sensitivity of 76.3% and specificity of 94.4%. Sensitivity increased to 91% when testing was performed <10 days from symptoms’ onset, and to 95% when considering Ct < 25. Multivariable binomial logistic regression showed that false negative LumiraDx™ results were significantly associated with high Ct values, and with further testing from symptoms’ onset. Conclusions: The results of our study suggested that the LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay may be appropriate for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially in its early phase when the test largely meets the performance requirements of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).

Indexed as

COVID-19Antigens, ViralHumansReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityAntigens, ViralaccuracyagreementCOVID-19diagnosisnegative predictive valuepositive predictive valuerapid antigen testingRT-PCRSARS-CoV-2sensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID35409513
PMCPMC8997977
OpenAlexW4221114722

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.