ArticleBMJ open2022
Rapid antigen testing by community health workers for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Dhaka, Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of self-performed SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Nasal swab is a good alternative sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2 with rapid antigen test: A meta-analysis.Travel medicine and infectious diseasePooled it
- Transformation of the WHO Africa Region Secretariat: an exploratory study of the health policy lessons from health governance strengthening interventions for just and sustainable health systems.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Pilot deployment of a community health care worker in distributing and offering the COVID-19 AgRDT in Tanzania.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- At-home testing for respiratory viruses: a minireview of the current landscape.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic performance and feasibility of rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection in low-income communities.
designWe conducted a cross-sectional community-based diagnostic accuracy study. Community health workers, who were trained and supervised by medical technicians, performed rapid antigen tests on symptomatic individuals, and up to two additional household members in their households and diagnostic results were calibrated against the gold standard RT-PCR.
settingLow-income communities in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
participantsBetween 19 May 2021 and 11 July 2021, 1240 nasal and saliva samples were collected from symptomatic individuals and 993 samples from additional household members (up to two from one household).
resultsThe sensitivity of rapid antigen tests was 0.68 on nasal samples (95% CI 0.62 to 0.73) and 0.41 on saliva (95% CI 0.35 to 0.46), with specificity also higher on nasal samples (0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 0.99) than saliva (0.87, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.90). Testing up to two additional household members increased sensitivity to 0.71 on nasal samples (95% CI 0.65 to 0.76), but reduced specificity (0.96, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.97). Sensitivity on saliva rose to 0.48 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.54) with two additional household members tested but remained lower than sensitivity on nasal samples. During the study period, testing in these low-income communities increased fourfold through the mobilisation of community health workers for sample collection.
conclusionsRapid antigen testing on nasal swabs can be effectively performed by community health workers yielding equivalent sensitivity and specificity to the literature. Household testing by community health workers in low-resource settings is an inexpensive approach that can increase testing capacity, accessibility and the effectiveness of control measures through immediately actionable results.
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.