ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Results to Infer Active or Non-Active Virus Replication Status in COVID-19 Patients.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Validation of a Colorimetric Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Using a Portable Device for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Point-of-care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen among symptomatic vs. asymptomatic persons: Testing for COVID-19 vs. infectivity.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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We used nasopharyngeal swab samples of patients with a symptomatic (n = 82) or asymptomatic (n = 20) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis to assess the ability of antigen detection tests to infer active (potentially transmissible) or inactive (potentially non-transmissible) infection by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Using the subgenomic RNA (sgRNA) as an active replication marker of SARS-CoV-2, 48 (76.2%), 56 (88.9%), and 63 (100%) of 63 samples with sgRNA positive results tested positive with the SD BIOSENSOR STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag (Standard Q), the SD BIOSENSOR STANDARD F COVID-19 Ag FIA (Standard F), or the Fujirebio LUMIPULSE G SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Lumipulse) assay, respectively. Conversely, 37 (94.9%), 29 (74.4%), and 7 (17.9%) of 39 samples with sgRNA negative results tested negative with Standard Q, Standard F, or Lumipulse, respectively. Stratifying results by the number of days of symptoms before testing revealed that most antigen positive/sgRNA positive results were among samples tested at 2-7 days regardless of the assay used. Conversely, most antigen negative/sgRNA negative results were among samples tested at 16-30 days only when Standard Q or Standard F were used. In conclusion, based on our findings, a negative antigen test, especially with the Lumipulse assay, or a positive antigen test, especially with the Standard F assay, may suggest, respectively, the absence or presence of replication-competent SARS-CoV-2.
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.