Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35536792›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Field evaluation of the performance of seven Antigen Rapid diagnostic tests for the diagnosis of SARs-CoV-2 virus infection in Uganda.

Josephine Bwogi, Tom Lutalo, Phionah Tushabe, Henry Bukenya, James Peter Eliku, Isaac Ssewanyana, Susan Nabadda, Christopher Nsereko, Matthew Cotten, Robert Downing and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Performance of a Rapid Coronavirus Disease 2019 Antigen Test in Rural Gabon.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Josephine BwogiUganda Virus Research Institute, Entebbe, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0001-6975-7106
Tom LutaloUganda Virus Research Institute, Entebbe, Uganda.
Phionah TushabeUganda Virus Research Institute, Entebbe, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0002-0729-5505
Henry BukenyaUganda Virus Research Institute, Entebbe, Uganda.
James Peter ElikuUganda Virus Research Institute, Entebbe, Uganda.
Isaac SsewanyanaCentral Public Health Laboratories, Kampala, Uganda.
Susan NabaddaCentral Public Health Laboratories, Kampala, Uganda.
Christopher NserekoEntebbe Regional Referral Hospital, Entebbe, Uganda.
Matthew CottenMedical Research Council/Uganda Virus Research Institute & London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Uganda Research Unit, Entebbe, Uganda.
Robert DowningUganda Virus Research Institute, Entebbe, Uganda.
Julius LutwamaUganda Virus Research Institute, Entebbe, Uganda.
Pontiano KaleebuUganda Virus Research Institute, Entebbe, Uganda.
EPI Laboratory team
UVRI -COVID 19 Technical team
Uganda Virus Research Institute · UGMinistry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries · UG

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_20001Medical Research Council MC_UU_00027/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of seven antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag RDTs) in a clinical setting to identify those that could be recommended for use in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Uganda.

methodsThis was a cross-sectional prospective study. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected consecutively from COVID-19 PCR positive and COVID-19 PCR negative participants at isolation centers and points of entry, and tested with the SARS-CoV-2 Ag RDTs. Test sensitivity and specificity were generated by comparing results against qRT-PCR results (Berlin Protocol) at a cycle threshold (Ct) cut-off of ≤39. Sensitivity was also calculated at Ct cut-offs ≤29 and ≤33.

resultsNone of the Ag RDTs had a sensitivity of ≥80% at Ct cut-off values ≤33 and ≤39. Two kits, Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag and VivaDiag™ SARS-CoV-2 Ag had a sensitivity of ≥80% at a Ct cut-off value of ≤29. Four kits: BIOCREDIT COVID -19 Ag, COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip, MEDsan® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test and Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test had a specificity of ≥97%.

conclusionsThis evaluation identified one Ag RDT, Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag with a performance at high viral load (Ct value ≤29) reaching that recommended by WHO. This kit was recommended for screening of patients with COVID -19-like symptoms presenting at health facilities.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Antigens, ViralCross-Sectional StudiesDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityUgandaAntigens, Viral

Identifiers

PMID35536792
PMCPMC9089886
OpenAlexW4280520442

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.