Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35865818›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2022

Clinical Performance of Three Commercial SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Tests for Community-Dwelling Individuals in a Tropical Setting.

Diana Morales-Jadán, Carolina Viteri-Dávila, Bernardo Castro-Rodriguez, Alexander Paolo Vallejo-Janeta, Ismar A Rivera-Olivero, Franklin Perez, Miguel Angel Garcia-Bereguiain

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 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
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Diana Morales-JadánOne Health Research Group, Universidad de las Américas, Quito, Ecuador.
Carolina Viteri-DávilaOne Health Research Group, Universidad de las Américas, Quito, Ecuador.
Bernardo Castro-RodriguezOne Health Research Group, Universidad de las Américas, Quito, Ecuador.
Alexander Paolo Vallejo-JanetaOne Health Research Group, Universidad de las Américas, Quito, Ecuador.
Ismar A Rivera-OliveroOne Health Research Group, Universidad de las Américas, Quito, Ecuador.
Franklin PerezOneLabt, Santa Elena, Ecuador.
Miguel Angel Garcia-BereguiainOne Health Research Group, Universidad de las Américas, Quito, Ecuador.
Universidad de Las Américas · EC

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of Rapid Diagnosis Antigen Tests (RDAgTs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection has substantially increased as some of the brands available in the market were certified for clinical use by international regulatory agencies. RDAgTs are a fast and cheap tool for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance with great potential to improve testing capacities in middle- and low-income countries compared to the gold standard RT-qPCR. However, as the clinical performance of RDAgTs has been shown to vary greatly between the commercial brands available, evaluation studies are necessary. Moreover, the available evaluation has been done in high-income countries while SARS-CoV-2 transmission is also actively happening in developing countries, many of which are located in tropical latitudes where cross-reactivity with other infectious agents is highly prevalent, which could compromise RDAgT specificity. Moreover, unreported mutations and/or new SARS-CoV-2 variants may compromise RDAgT sensitivity as genomic surveillance is limited in these settings. Here we describe a multicenter and manufacturer-independent evaluation of the clinical performance and analytical sensitivity of three different RDAgTs brands available in South America from three companies, Rapigen (South Korea), SD-Biosensor (South Korea), and Certest (Spain), compared to the gold standard RT-qPCR. A total number of 1,646 nasopharyngeal swabs from community-dwelling individuals were included in the study, and 379 of them were SARS-CoV-2 positive by RT-qPCR. The overall sensitivity for each RDAgT was 79% (IC95%: 72 - 86.2), 64.2% (IC95%: 56.7 - 71.6), and 45.8% (IC95%: 35.8 - 55.8) for SD-Biosensor, Certest, and Rapigen, respectively. The overall specificity for each RDAgT was 100%, 97.7% (IC95%: 96.8 - 98.6), and 100% for SD-Biosensor, Certest, and Rapigen, respectively. However, the limit of detection (LoD) to achieve a sensitivity over 90% was substantially lower for Certest RDAgT (10

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2HumansIndependent LivingPandemicsSensitivity and Specificityantigen testCertestclinical performanceRapiGEN® Ag test kitSARS–CoV–2SD-Biosensor

Identifiers

PMID35865818
PMCPMC9294138
OpenAlexW4283808122

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.