Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35690722›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2022

Diagnostic accuracy and feasibility of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in general practice - a prospective multicenter validation and implementation study.

Jörn Rohde, Wolfgang Himmel, Clemens Hofinger, Thiên-Trí Lâm, Hanna Schrader, Julia Wallstabe, Oliver Kurzai, Ildikó Gágyor

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jörn RohdeDepartment of General Practice, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany. rohde_j@ukw.de.
Wolfgang HimmelDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany.
Clemens HofingerDepartment of General Practice, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
Thiên-Trí LâmInstitute for Hygiene and Microbiology, Julius-Maximilians University of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
Hanna SchraderDepartment of General Practice, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
Julia WallstabeInstitute for Hygiene and Microbiology, Julius-Maximilians University of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
Oliver KurzaiInstitute for Hygiene and Microbiology, Julius-Maximilians University of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
Ildikó GágyorDepartment of General Practice, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
University of Würzburg · DEInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPCR testing is considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis but its results are earliest available hours to days after testing. Rapid antigen tests represent a diagnostic tool enabling testing at the point of care. Rapid antigen tests have mostly been validated by the manufacturer or in controlled laboratory settings only. External validation at the point of care, particularly in general practice where the test is frequently used, is needed. Furthermore, it is unclear how well point of care tests are accepted by the practice staff.

methodsIn this prospective multicenter validation study in primary care, general practitioners included adult individuals presenting with symptoms suggesting COVID-19. Each patient was tested by the general practitioner, first with a nasopharyngeal swab for the point of care test (Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test) and then with a second swab for PCR testing. Using the RT-PCR result as a reference, we calculated specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value, with their 95% confidence intervals. General practitioners and medical assistants completed a survey to assess feasibility and usefulness of the point of care tests.

resultsIn 40 practices in Würzburg, Germany, 1518 patients were recruited between 12/2020 and 06/2021. The point of care test achieved a sensitivity of 78.3% and a specificity of 99.5% compared to RT-PCR. With a prevalence of 9.5%, the positive predictive value was 93.9% and the negative predictive value was 97.8%. General practitioners rated the point of care test as a helpful tool to support diagnostics in patients with signs and symptoms suggestive for infection, particularly in situations where decision on further care is needed at short notice.

conclusionThe point of care test used in this study showed a sensitivity below the manufacturer's specification (Sensitivity 96.25%) in the practice but high values for specificity and high positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Although widely accepted in the practice, measures for further patient management require a sensitive interpretation of the point of care test results.

Indexed as

COVID-19General PracticeAdultClinical Laboratory TechniquesCOVID-19 TestingFeasibility StudiesHumansProspective StudiesSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityAttitude of health personnelCOVID-19 testingFeasibility studyGeneral practiceSensitivity and specificity

Identifiers

PMID35690722
PMCPMC9187884
OpenAlexW4282935095

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.