ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Performance Evaluation of a Rapid Antigen Test (RAT) during Omicron Pandemic Wave in Greece, Conducted by Different Personnel, and Comparison with Performance in Previous Wave (Alpha Variant) Period.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Ten rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 widely differ in their ability to detect Omicron-BA.4 and -BA.5.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2023Article
- Analytical sensitivity of COVID-19 rapid antigen tests: A case for a robust reference standard.Talanta open · 2023Article
- Variable detection of Omicron-BA.1 and -BA.2 by SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2023Article
- Clinical practice of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant: A single-center study in China.Virologica Sinica · 2022Article
- Sensitivity analysis of rapid antigen tests for the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant detection from nasopharyngeal swab samples collected in Santiago of Chile.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the prevailing ambiguity regarding the performance of rapid antigen tests (RATs) for B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant diagnosis, a commercial RAT was evaluated in the emergency ward of a general hospital in Larissa, Central Greece. The sampling and the evaluation were repeated twice by different personnel. Discordance between the two samplings was observed regarding the sensitivity (47.5%, 95% CI: 39.0-56.1 vs. 78.6%, 95% CI: 69.1-86.2) and specificity (93.8%, 95% CI: 86.0-97.9 vs. 100.0%, 95% CI: 93.3-100.0) of the RAT. Furthermore, the test displayed slightly lower sensitivity (78.6% vs. 85.5%, 95% CI: 79.1-90.5) compared to its initial evaluation that was conducted by our team when the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant was dominant.
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.