Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35812789›Full record

ArticlePRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)2022

Rapid Antigen Test Sensitivity for Asymptomatic COVID-19 Screening.

Alyssa M Indelicato, Zacharia H Mohamed, Mantosh J Dewan, Christopher P Morley

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests for screening of healthcare workers; experience with over 48,000 combined antigen tests and RT-PCR tests.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2023
    Article
  4. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Alyssa M IndelicatoSUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY.
Zacharia H MohamedSUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY.
Mantosh J DewanSUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY.
Christopher P MorleyDepartment of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, and Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences | State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY.
SUNY Upstate Medical University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Operating in-person instruction, residential living, and other activities at institutions of higher education (IHEs) in the context of the pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov2) have posed a multitude of challenges. Identification of asymptomatic cases at IHEs is crucial, as a large reservoir of virus can potentially develop among students. Unfortunately, despite the advantages, rapid antigen tests (RATs) have variously been shown to perform poorly when used with asymptomatic individuals. Methods: In order to address the appropriateness of RAT use in screening asymptomatic populations like those at IHEs, we conducted a rapid review of published evaluations of RATs available in the United States, where sensitivity and specificity were reported specifically from asymptomatic populations. We extracted sensitivity and specificity for asymptomatic populations reported in each article, along with location and important notes. The data are presented narratively. Results: A total of 11 articles were included for evaluation and presentation, representing tests from four manufacturers. Sensitivity ranged from 35.8% to a high of about 71%, with caveats to the higher number about exposure. Both the low and high sensitivity rates were observed in Abbott BinaxNOW RATs. Due to heterogeneity and publishing differences, a meta-analysis was not feasible, but RAT tests in asymptomatic populations tended to identify roughly half of those identified as infected via reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Specificity ranged from 97.8% to 100%. Conclusion: The results of this rapid review indicate serious issues in misidentifying asymptomatic individuals as COVID-19 negative, when in fact they are infected and carrying the SARS-Cov2 virus.

Identifiers

PMID35812789
PMCPMC9258726
OpenAlexW4283263218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.