ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Diagnostic Performance of the Rapid Antigen Test as a Screening Tool for SARS-CoV-2 Infection in the Emergency Department.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of 12 Rapid Antigen Tests for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2.Journal of biological methods · 2024Article
- Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Screening Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Infection at Correctional Facilities in Korea: March - May 2022.Infection & chemotherapy · 2023Article
- Ten rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 widely differ in their ability to detect Omicron-BA.4 and -BA.5.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Among People Experiencing Homelessness: A Prospective Cohort and Implementation Study.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid antigen test (RAT) has been adopted as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection in many emergency departments (EDs). We aimed to investigate the diagnostic value of the accuracy of the SARS-CoV-2 RAT as a screening tool in the ED. This retrospective observational study included patients who underwent both RAT and RT−PCR and visited the ED from 1 December 2021 to 15 March 2022. RAT and RT−PCR were performed by appropriately trained physicians. We performed detailed analyses using the E gene cyclic threshold (Ct) values of RT−PCR. Out of a total of 1875 patients, 348 (18.6%) had positive and 1527 (81.4%) had negative RT−PCR results. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the RAT were 67.8%, 99.9%, 99.6%, and 93.2%, respectively. The E gene Ct value was significantly lower in the RAT-positive patients than in the RAT-negative patients (18.5 vs. 25.3, p < 0.001). When the E gene Ct cutoff was 30.0, 25.0, 20.0, and 15.0, the sensitivity of the RAT was 71.9%, 80.3%, 93.0%, and 97.8%, respectively. The sensitivity of the RAT could be considered high in patients with a high viral load, and the RAT could be used as a screening tool in the ED.
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.