ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2022
Evaluation of the rapid antigen detection test STANDARD F COVID-19 Ag FIA for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2: experience from an Emergency Department.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Virology journal · 2024Pooled it
- The Suitability of RNA from Positive SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Tests for Whole Virus Genome Sequencing and Variant Identification to Maintain Genomic Surveillance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Testing of Emergency Department Patients Using cobasDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Rapid Antigen Tests during the COVID-19 Era in Korea and Their Implementation as a Detection Tool for Other Infectious Diseases.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical performance of STANDARD F COVID-19 Ag FIA (SD Biosensor Inc., Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea), a rapid antigen detection test (RADT) for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2, in patients attended at the Emergency Department with signs or symptoms compatible with COVID-19 that had started in the last 5 days. The clinical performance of the antigen test was compared with RT-PCR, the reference standard. We included 663 specimens from non-repetitive patients. Clinical sensitivity and specificity were 84.0% (95% CI 76.1-89.7) and 99.6% (95% CI 98.5-99.9), respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 98.1% (95% CI 92.7-99.7) and 96.4% (95% CI 94.4-97.7), respectively. The kappa index agreement between RT-PCR and the RADT was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.93). We concluded that STANDARD F COVID-19 Ag FIA is an excellent first-line RADT method to diagnose symptomatic patients in the emergency department.
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.