ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2022
Utility of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing for patient triage in the emergency department: A clinical implementation study in Melbourne, Australia.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Impact of Rapid Viral Testing on Patient Flow and Length of Stay in a Tertiary Pediatric Emergency Department.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Self-administered versus clinician-performed BinaxNOW COVID rapid test: a comparison of accuracy.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Effects of Different SARS-CoV-2 Testing Strategies in the Emergency Department on Length of Stay and Clinical Outcomes: A Randomised Controlled Trial.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2024Article
- The latest advancements in Sosuga virus (SOSV) research.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Review
- Doubts and concerns about COVID-19 uncertainties on imaging data, clinical score, and outcomes.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2023Article
- Evaluation of a Commercial Point-of-Care RT-LAMP Assay for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Impact of national-scale targeted point-of-care symptomatic lateral flow testing on trends in COVID-19 infections, hospitalisations and deaths during the second epidemic wave in Austria (REAP3).BMC public health · 2023Article
- Article
- The Use of Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Test in the Emergency Department as a Decision-Support Tool.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Temporary impact on medical system and effectiveness of mitigation strategies after COVID-19 policy adjustment in China: a modeling study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Observational
- COVID-19 rapid antigen testing strategies must be evaluated in intended use settings.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2022Article
- Article
- COVID-19 and isolation: Risks and implications in the scenario of new variants.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious DiseasesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early, rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 is essential in healthcare settings in order to implement appropriate infection control precautions and rapidly assign patients to care pathways. Rapid testing methods, such as SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing (RAT) may improve patient care, despite a lower sensitivity than real-time PCR (RT-PCR) testing. Methods: Patients presenting to an Emergency Department (ED) in Melbourne, Australia, were risk-stratified for their likelihood of active COVID-19 infection, and a non-randomised cohort of patients were tested by both Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag test (RAT) and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Patients with a positive RAT in the 'At or High Risk' COVID-19 group were moved immediately to a COVID-19 ward rather than waiting for a RT-PCR result. Clinical and laboratory data were assessed to determine test performance characteristics; and length of stay in the ED was compared for the different patient cohorts. Findings: Analysis of 1762 paired RAT/RT-PCR samples demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 75.5% (206/273; 95% CI: 69·9-80·4) for the Abbott Panbio™ COVID-12 Ag test, with specificity of 100% (1489/1489; 95% CI: 99·8-100). Sensitivity improved with increasing risk for COVID-19 infection, from 72·4% (95% CI: 52·8-87·3) in the 'No Risk' cohort to 100% (95% CI: 29·2-100) in the 'High Risk' group. Time in the ED for the 'At/High Risk' group decreased from 421 minutes (IQR: 281, 525) for those with a positive RAT result to 274 minutes (IQR:140, 425) for those with a negative RAT result, p = 0.02. Interpretation: The positive predictive value of a positive RAT in this setting was high, allowing more rapid instigation of COVID-19 care pathways and an improvement in patient flow within the ED. Funding: Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
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.