ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Field Evaluation of the New Rapid NG-Test
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As the COVID-19 pandemic resurges affecting large numbers of patients, rapid, and accurate diagnosis using point-of-care tests is very important. Objectives: To evaluate the NG-Test Methods: All adult ambulatory patients presenting to the Emergencies of "Attikon" University hospital (Athens, Greece) within three consecutive hours per day between December 2020 and March 2021 and for whom SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing was requested were included. Two NP and one OP samples obtained from each participant were analyzed to determine the diagnostic performance [sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV)] of the NG-Test (NP/OP swabs) in comparison to the reference RT-PCR (NP swab). Results: Overall, 134/263 (51%) patients tested were RT-PCR positive, whereof 108 (overall sensitivity 81%, 95% CI 73-87%) were NP NG-Test positive (PPV 99%, NPV 83%) and 68 (overall sensitivity 51%, 95% CI 42-59%) were OP NG-Test positive (PPV 100%, NPV 66%). The test's specificity (95% CI) was 99% (95-100%) and 100% (96-100%) for NP and OP swabs, respectively. The assay's sensitivity (95% CI) for high viral load (C Conclusions: NG-Test using NP swabs detected almost all patients with high viral loads, showing satisfactory performance as a point-of-care test for NP samples obtained from patients with acute infection.
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.