ArticleJAMA internal medicine2022
Comparison of Home Antigen Testing With RT-PCR and Viral Culture During the Course of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.
Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 74 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
74 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 155 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing (December 2023).Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Guideline
- Effectiveness of azvudine in reducing mortality of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Virology journal · 2024Pooled it
- Revised Guidelines for Coronavirus Disease 19 Management in Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Recipients (August 2022).Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2022Guideline
- SARS-CoV-2 viral dynamics in a placebo-controlled phase 2 study of patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant and treated with pomotrelvir.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Trial
- At-Home Versus Onsite COVID-19 School-based Testing: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.Pediatrics · 2023Trial
- Characteristics Influencing Adherence to SARS-CoV-2 Serial Antigen Testing Following a Federal Safety Communication: Cohort Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- Mass-Produced and High-Performance Nanowell Biosensor Fabricated via Semiconductor Manufacturing for Rapid and Accurate COVID-19 Diagnosis in the Clinical Field.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Bead-based approaches for increased sensitivity and multiplexing of CRISPR diagnostics.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Independent Testing to Accelerate the Development of Lateral Flow Assays for Influenza A, Influenza B and SARS-COV-2.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026Article
- Population health and implementation outcomes of self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 using antigen detecting diagnostics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Should public health policy exempt cases with low viral load from isolation during an epidemic?: a modelling study.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2025Article
- Development and clinical application of a rapid qPCR instrument featuring three independent temperature modules and a time-based algorithm for respiratory pathogen diagnosis.Virology journal · 2025Article
- Integrative insights into the oral microbiome's role in systemic diseases: novel therapeutic strategies and future directions.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · 2025Review
- Acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025Review
- The dual threat: exploring the emergence of human metapneumovirus and SARS-CoV-2 coinfections in respiratory infections.3 Biotech · 2025Review
- A Randomized Trial of At-Home COVID-19 Tests, Telemedicine, and Rapid Prescription Delivery for Immunocompromised Individuals.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2025Article
- Longitudinal voice monitoring in a decentralized Bring Your Own Device trial for respiratory illness detection.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Effectiveness of BNT162b2 XBB vaccine in the US Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Effectiveness and safety of azvudine versus nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in adult patients infected with COVID-19 omicron strains: a retrospective study in Beijing.Scientific reports · 2024Article
14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
34 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: As self-collected home antigen tests become widely available, a better understanding of their performance during the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection is needed. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of home antigen tests compared with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral culture by days from illness onset, as well as user acceptability. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study was conducted from January to May 2021 in San Diego County, California, and metropolitan Denver, Colorado. The convenience sample included adults and children with RT-PCR-confirmed infection who used self-collected home antigen tests for 15 days and underwent at least 1 nasopharyngeal swab for RT-PCR, viral culture, and sequencing. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the daily sensitivity of home antigen tests to detect RT-PCR-confirmed cases. Secondary outcomes included the daily percentage of antigen test, RT-PCR, and viral culture results that were positive, and antigen test sensitivity compared with same-day RT-PCR and cultures. Antigen test use errors and acceptability were assessed for a subset of participants. Results: This study enrolled 225 persons with RT-PCR-confirmed infection (median [range] age, 29 [1-83] years; 117 female participants [52%]; 10 [4%] Asian, 6 [3%] Black or African American, 50 [22%] Hispanic or Latino, 3 [1%] Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 145 [64%] White, and 11 [5%] multiracial individuals) who completed 3044 antigen tests and 642 nasopharyngeal swabs. Antigen test sensitivity was 50% (95% CI, 45%-55%) during the infectious period, 64% (95% CI, 56%-70%) compared with same-day RT-PCR, and 84% (95% CI, 75%-90%) compared with same-day cultures. Antigen test sensitivity peaked 4 days after illness onset at 77% (95% CI, 69%-83%). Antigen test sensitivity improved with a second antigen test 1 to 2 days later, particularly early in the infection. Six days after illness onset, antigen test result positivity was 61% (95% CI, 53%-68%). Almost all (216 [96%]) surveyed individuals reported that they would be more likely to get tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if home antigen tests were available over the counter. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study of home antigen tests suggest that sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 was moderate compared with RT-PCR and high compared with viral culture. The results also suggest that symptomatic individuals with an initial negative home antigen test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection should test again 1 to 2 days later because test sensitivity peaked several days after illness onset and improved with repeated testing.
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.