ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2022
Performance evaluation of four rapid antibody tests for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fuzzy-Based PROMETHEE Method for Performance Ranking of SARS-CoV-2 IgM Antibody Tests.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Performance evaluation of four rapid antibody tests for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prompt detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is important in the therapeutic management of infected patients. Rapid diagnostic tests are widely used for this purpose. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of four SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin IgG/IgM rapid diagnostic tests in the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
methodsNasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs and/or sputum were collected from 30 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and 30 healthy volunteers. All specimens were tested using four SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM rapid diagnostic tests and real-time polymerase chain reaction. We assessed the clinical sensitivity and specificity of the tests.
resultsThe clinical sensitivity of FREND™, SsmarTest™, BIOCREDIT™, and IVDLAB™ was 96.67%, 100.00%, 100.00%, and 96.67%, respectively, compared to real-time polymerase chain reaction. The clinical specificity was 96.67%, 100.00%, 86.67%, and 96.67%, respectively.
conclusionThese findings could expedite the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and thus reduce the risk of further transmission of the virus.
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.