ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2022
Performance evaluation of STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag home test for the diagnosis of COVID-19 during early symptom onset.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling with molecular and professional-use tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Association Between Rapid Antigen Detection Tests and Real-Time Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.International journal of public health · 2023Pooled it
- Nasal swab is a good alternative sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2 with rapid antigen test: A meta-analysis.Travel medicine and infectious diseasePooled it
- Novel High-Throughput Electrochemical Detection of Staphylococcus Aureus, Bacillus Cereus, or Micrococcus Luteus Using AuNPs@TiSmall (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025Article
- The diagnostic performance evaluation of Panbio and STANDARD Q coronavirus disease 2019 antigen tests against real-time polymerase chain reaction in southern Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance of a SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A/B Combo Rapid Antigen Test in Respiratory Samples.Diagnostics (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
- Clinical Evaluation of an Antigen Home Test Using Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy and Stacking Pad for SARS-CoV-2 Screening with Nasal and Salivary Swab Samples.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Performance Evaluation of STANDARD Q COVID/FLU Ag Combo for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A/B.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the T cell and B cell response following the administration of COVID-19 vaccines in Korea.Journal of microbiology, immunology, and infection = Wei mian yu gan ran za zhi · 2022Article
- Performance evaluation of STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag home test for the diagnosis of COVID-19 during early symptom onset.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurveillance and control of SARS-CoV-2 outbreak through gold standard detection, that is, real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), become a great obstacle, especially in overwhelming outbreaks. In this study, we aimed to analyze the performance of rapid antigen home test (RAHT) as an alternative detection method compared with RT-PCR.
methodsIn total, 79 COVID-19-positive and 217 COVID-19-negative patients confirmed by RT-PCR were enrolled in this study. A duration from symptom onset to COVID-19 confirmation of <5 days was considered a recruiting criterion for COVID-19-positive cases. A nasal cavity specimen was collected for the RAHT, and a nasopharyngeal swab specimen was collected for RT-PCR.
resultsSensitivity of the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Home Test (SD Biosensor, Korea), compared with RT-PCR, was 94.94% (75/79) (95% [confidence interval] CI, 87.54%-98.60%), and specificity was 100%. Sensitivity was significantly higher in symptomatic patients (98.00%) than in asymptomatic (89.66%) patients (p-value = 0.03). There was no difference in sensitivity according to the duration of symptom onset to confirmation (100% for 0-2 days and 96.97% for 3-5 days, respectively) (p-value = 1.00). The RAHT detected all 51 COVID-19 patients whose Ct values were ≤25 (100%), whereas sensitivity was 73.33% (11/15) among patients with Ct values >25 (p-value = 0.01).
conclusionThe RAHT showed an excellent sensitivity for COVID-19-confirmed cases, especially for those with symptoms. There was a decrease in sensitivity when the Ct value is over 25, indicating that RAHT screening may be useful during the early phase of symptom onset, when the viral numbers are higher and it is more transmissible.
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.