Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35983773›Full record

ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2022

Role of population and test characteristics in antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, Czechia, August to November 2021.

Tomáš Kliegr, Jiří Jarkovský, Helena Jiřincová, Jaroslav Kuchař, Tomáš Karel, Ruth Tachezy

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Tomáš KliegrDepartment of Information and Knowledge Engineering, Faculty of Informatics and Statistics, Prague University of Economics and Business, Prague, Czechia.
Jiří JarkovskýInstitute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czechia.
Helena JiřincováNational Reference Laboratory for Influenza and Respiratory Viruses, National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czechia.
Jaroslav KuchařDepartment of Software Engineering, Faculty of Information Technology, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czechia.
Tomáš KarelDepartment of Statistics and Probability, Faculty of Informatics and Statistics, Prague University of Economics and Business, Prague, Czechia.
Ruth TachezyDepartment of Genetics and Microbiology, Faculty of Science-BIOCEV, Charles University, Vestec, Czechia.
Prague University of Economics and Business · CZCharles University · CZCzech Technical University in Prague · CZInstitute of Health Information and Statistics · CZNational Institute of Public Health · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundAnalyses of diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (AG-RDTs) based on long-term data, population subgroups and many AG-RDT types are scarce.AimWe aimed to analyse sensitivity and specificity of AG-RDTs for subgroups based on age, incidence, sample type, reason for test, symptoms, vaccination status and the AG-RDT's presence on approved lists.MethodsWe included AG-RDT results registered in Czechia's Information System for Infectious Diseases between August and November 2021. Subpopulations were analysed based on 346,000 test results for which a confirmatory PCR test was recorded ≤ 3 days after the AG-RDT; 38 AG-RDTs with more than 100 PCR-positive and 300 PCR-negative samples were individually evaluated.ResultsAverage sensitivity and specificity were 72.4% and 96.7%, respectively. We recorded lower sensitivity for age groups 0-12 (65.5%) and 13-18 years (65.3%). The sensitivity level rose with increasing SARS-CoV-2 incidence from 66.0% to 76.7%. Nasopharyngeal samples had the highest sensitivity and saliva the lowest. Sensitivity for preventive reasons was 63.6% vs 86.1% when testing for suspected infection. Sensitivity was 84.8% when one or more symptoms were reported compared with 57.1% for no symptoms. Vaccination was associated with a 4.2% higher sensitivity. Significantly higher sensitivity levels pertained to AG-RDTs on the World Health Organization Emergency Use List (WHO EUL), European Union Common List and the list of the United Kingdom's Department of Health and Social Care.ConclusionAG-RDTs from approved lists should be considered, especially in situations associated with lower viral load. Results are limited to SARS-CoV-2 delta variant.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Antigens, ViralCOVID-19 TestingCzech RepublicHumansSensitivity and SpecificityAntigens, Viralclinical evaluationnational studyrapid antigen testSARS-Cov-2

Identifiers

PMID35983773
PMCPMC9389858
OpenAlexW4292486607

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.