ArticleJournal of medical virology2022
Evaluation of diagnostic test procedures for SARS-CoV-2 using latent class models.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital twin simulation modelling shows that mass testing and local lockdowns effectively controlled COVID-19 in Denmark.Communications medicine · 2024Article
- Addressing misclassification bias in vaccine effectiveness studies with an application to Covid-19.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Vitamin D status and severity of COVID-19.Scientific reports · 2022Observational
- Evaluation of diagnostic test procedures for SARS-CoV-2 using latent class models.Journal of medical virology · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antigen tests have been used extensively for screening during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemics. However, the real-world sensitivity and specificity of the two testing procedures in the field have not yet been estimated without assuming that the PCR constitutes a gold standard test. We use latent class models to estimate the in situ performance of both tests using data from the Danish national registries. We find that the specificity of both tests is very high (>99.7%), while the sensitivities are 95.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 92.8%-98.4%) and 53.8% (95% CI: 49.8%-57.9%) for the PCR and antigen tests, respectively. These findings have implications for the use of confirmatory PCR tests following a positive antigen test result: we estimate that serial testing is counterproductive at higher prevalence levels.
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.