Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35453895›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

A Performance Assessment Study of Different Clinical Samples for Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Diagnosis Tests.

Naveed Ahmed, Mohammad Nur Amin Kalil, Wardah Yusof, Mimi Azliha Abu Bakar, Afifah Sjamun Sjahid, Rosline Hassan, Mohd Hashairi Fauzi, Chan Yean Yean

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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.

Naveed AhmedDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Parasitology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian 16150, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0003-1504-1705
Mohammad Nur Amin KalilDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian 16150, Malaysia.
Wardah YusofDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Parasitology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian 16150, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0003-2574-6119
Mimi Azliha Abu BakarDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian 16150, Malaysia.
Afifah Sjamun SjahidDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian 16150, Malaysia.
Rosline HassanHospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian 16150, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0003-0493-1390
Mohd Hashairi FauziDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian 16150, Malaysia.
Chan Yean YeanDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Parasitology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian 16150, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-0034-7624
Universiti Sains Malaysia · MY

Funding

Universiti Sains Malaysia 304/PPSP/6150217/M178Universiti Sains Malaysia 304/PPSP/6150231/M178
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate diagnosis to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial for the clinical management of this lethal infection. Recently, many low-cost and easy-to-use rapid test kits (RTK) have been developed in many countries for the massive screening of SARS-CoV-2. Thus, evaluating the accuracy and reliability of an RTK is critical. The current study was conducted on 157 individuals to evaluate the performance accuracy of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection kits using different clinical samples compared with qRT-PCR results. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from patients for qRT-PCR and RTK tests, and then buccal and nasal, and nasal swabs were collected for RTK tests separately. The nasal and buccal swabs showed high sensitivity (98%) and specificity (100%) compared with the qRT-PCR results. Meanwhile, for nasal, the sensitivity was 96% with 98% specificity, and nasopharyngeal swabs showed 98% sensitivity and 94% specificity. Fisher’s exact test revealed statistical significance (p < 0.05) between nasopharyngeal, nasal and buccal, and nasal swabs compared with qRT-PCR results. The study concludes that different clinical samples used for the rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 showed high sensitivities and specificities compared with qRT-PCR. The RTKs using nasal and buccal, nasopharyngeal, and nasal swabs are valuable tools for the early detection of SARS-CoV-2, especially when molecular detections are available with limited access and a high infectivity rate, when the timely detection of virus cases is urgently needed. These types of clinical samples are effective to be used by RTKs for surveillance among community and healthcare workers.

Indexed as

diagnostic kitearly diagnosisperformance accuracyrapid self-testreal-time RT-PCRSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35453895
PMCPMC9030639
OpenAlexW4221130127

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.