ArticleInfection and drug resistance2022
Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of a Rapid Antigen Test with Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Among Patients Diagnosed with COVID-19 at Selected Hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association Between Rapid Antigen Detection Tests and Real-Time Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.International journal of public health · 2023Pooled it
- The diagnostic performance evaluation of Panbio and STANDARD Q coronavirus disease 2019 antigen tests against real-time polymerase chain reaction in southern Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: When faced with a public health problem such as the COVID-19 pandemic, devising a test with an accurate and rapid diagnostic capacity is critical to contain the disease. We compared the diagnostic performance of a rapid antigen test in comparison with a reference method, namely a real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay. Methods: We enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19 from two selected hospital in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, between January and November 2021. We assessed the performance of the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag Kit (SD Biosensor, Republic of Korea) in 200 nasopharyngeal and nasal swab samples. Results: Out of the 200 samples utilized for the diagnostic performance evaluation, equal proportion of the samples were confirmed positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2 based on RT-PCR. Of the 100 confirmed positive cases, 95 showed positive results with the rapid antigen test, yielding a sensitivity of 95% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.7-98.4%). Of the 100 confirmed negative cases, there were three false-positive results, yielding a specificity of 97% (95% CI 91.5-99.4%). The sensitivity of the rapid antigen test was higher for samples with an RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤25 compared with samples with a higher Ct value. Conclusion: The finding demonstrated that the detection capacity of the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag Test meets the requirements set by the Ministry of Health Ethiopia. The high sensitivity and specificity of the test device indicate the possibility of using it for diagnostic and clinical purposes in resource-constrained settings such as Ethiopia.
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.