ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2022
Field evaluation of COVID-19 rapid antigen test: Are rapid antigen tests less reliable among the elderly?
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 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.
- Evaluation of COVID-19 rapid antigen test against polymerase chain reaction test in immunocompromised patients.PloS one · 2024Article
- 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
- Rapid Antigen Tests during the COVID-19 Era in Korea and Their Implementation as a Detection Tool for Other Infectious Diseases.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Effect of gender on the reliability of COVID-19 rapid antigen test among elderly.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe global outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) leads to the development of accessible and cost-effective rapid antigen-detection tests (RATs), as quick and accurate diagnosis is crucial to curb the pandemic.
aimTo evaluate the Humasis COVID-19 Ag Test (Humasis Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea) in the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2).
methodsThis retrospective study was carried out at the Croatian Institute of Public Health and included patients with clinical symptoms of COVID-19 lasting no longer than 5 d prior to testing, whose nasopharyngeal swabs were primarily tested with RAT. Negative RAT samples underwent confirmatory real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Diagnostic efficacy was determined compared to RT-PCR. The patients were divided into three age groups (< 18, 19-65, > 65 years). Statistical analysis was performed with the significance level set at
resultsIn total, 2490 symptomatic patients were tested; 953 samples were positive on RAT, and 1537 were negative. All negative RAT samples were subjected to RT-PCR; 266 samples were positive and marked as false-negative results on RAT. The calculated negative predictive value as a measure of RAT efficacy was 82.69%. The
conclusionEvaluated RAT demonstrated satisfactory performance with more reliable results in younger patients. Humasis COVID-19 Ag RAT is potentially a valuable tool in areas where access to molecular methods is limited; however, RT-PCR remains a gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
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.