ArticleHealth science reports2022
Evaluation of a novel SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigenic test diagnostic value in respiratory samples; is the reported test accuracy similar to values in the real-world? A cross-sectional study.
Article in Health science reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Although reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay was introduced as the gold standard to detect SARS-CoV-2, the method was known to be time-consuming besides the requirement for an equipped laboratory. This survey aims to investigate a novel SARS-CoV-2 antigen test as a diagnostic tool in COVID-19 patients to overcome these limitations in addition to evaluating COVID-19 population characteristics. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was carried out during the first semester of 2021, and about 1070 nasopharyngeal samples were collected to compare the E-Health Barakat Company SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test results with RT-PCR reports as the reference method. Results: Totally 537 participants were included in this study for employing RT-PCR and the antigen test sequentially. The novel antigen rapid test sensitivity is considered 21.09% in the real world, though 81% in the manufacturer's instruction has been mentioned. Moreover, the most revealed manifestations were found respiratory symptoms and fatigue sensations. Conclusion: This study is the first one on evaluating the SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in our country. Although the novel antigen assay was found quick and easy to perform, the test performance was very disappointing. The extensive false-negative results made it an inappropriate candidate for mass screening.
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.