ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2022
Ophthalmology practice in COVID-19 pandemic: Performance of rapid antigen test versus real time-reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction in a tertiary eye care institute in South India.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Commentary: Can we depend on the point-of-care rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 for routine ophthalmic procedures and high volume ophthalmic settings?Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the rapid antigen test (RAT) against the gold standard reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to screen COVID-19 infection in asymptomatic patients undergoing ophthalmic procedures. Methods: This was a retrospective hospital-based study. Point-of-care (PoC) RAT was performed using nasopharyngeal swab, while RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA was performed using both nasopharyngeal and throat swabs. Results: A total of 629 patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by using both RAT and RT-PCR. Only one patient had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with both RAT and RT-PCR, while two patients had tested positive with RT-PCR after an initial negative RAT. The positivity rate for RAT was 0.15% (1/629), and that for RT-PCR was 0.47%. Percent agreement or proportion of agreement observed between the two tests was 99.68%, while Cohen's kappa coefficient value was 0.49. The sensitivity of RAT in comparison to RT-PCR was 33.33%, specificity was 100%, positive predictive value was 100%, and negative predictive value was 99.68%. Conclusion: The sensitivity and Cohen's kappa coefficient in our study were low but that can be attributed to the overall low positivity rates with both RAT and RT-PCR. However, percent agreement observed between the two tests was very high. Therefore, we recommend initial screening of all the patients for COVID-19 symptoms followed by RAT before performing any ophthalmic surgical procedure to ensure the safety of the health care professionals as well as the patients.
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.