Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35486394›Full record

ArticleJAMA internal medicine2022

Comparison of Home Antigen Testing With RT-PCR and Viral Culture During the Course of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Victoria T Chu, Noah G Schwartz, Marisa A P Donnelly, Meagan R Chuey, Raymond Soto, Anna R Yousaf, Emily N Schmitt-Matzen, Sadia Sleweon, Jasmine Ruffin, Natalie Thornburg and 24 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
15.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 155 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

34 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Victoria T ChuCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Noah G SchwartzCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Marisa A P DonnellyCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Meagan R ChueyCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Raymond SotoCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Anna R YousafCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Emily N Schmitt-MatzenCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Sadia SleweonCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jasmine RuffinCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Natalie ThornburgCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jennifer L HarcourtCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Azaibi TaminCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Gimin KimCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jennifer M FolsterCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Laura J HughesCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Suxiang TongCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Ginger StringerColorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver.
Bernadette A AlbaneseTri-County Health Department, Greenwood Village, Colorado.
Sarah E TottenColorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver.
Meghan M HudziecColorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver.
Shannon R MatzingerColorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver.
Elizabeth A DietrichCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Sarah W SheldonCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Sarah StousCounty of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency, San Diego, California.
Eric C McDonaldCounty of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency, San Diego, California.
Brett AustinCounty of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency, San Diego, California.
Mark E BeattyCounty of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency, San Diego, California.
J Erin StaplesCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Marie E KillerbyCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Christopher H HsuCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jacqueline E TateCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Hannah L KirkingCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Almea MatanockCOVID-19 Response Team, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
COVID-19 Household Transmission Team
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USColorado Department of Public Health and Environment · USHealth and Human Services Agency · USTri-County Health Department · US

Funding

BIOLOGY OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES TRAINING PROGRAMT32AI007641 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI MATTHEW G DORSEY · 2000 to 2026
$6.9M
NIAID NIH HHS T32 AI007641
6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19AdultChildCohort StudiesFemaleHumansProspective StudiesReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID35486394
PMCPMC9055515
OpenAlexW4225131924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.