ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2022
Evaluation of the Boson rapid Ag test vs RT-PCR for use as a self-testing platform.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Performance of self-performed SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Comparing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling with molecular and professional-use tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Frequent Point-of-Care Molecular COVID-19 Surveillance in a Rural Workplace: Nonrandomized Controlled Clinical Trial Among Miners.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Article
- Self-tests for COVID-19: What is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023).PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Characteristics of hematological parameters on admission in COVID-19 Omicron variant infected in Chinese population: a large-scale retrospective study.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Performance characteristics of the boson rapid SARS-cov-2 antigen test card vs RT-PCR: Cross-reactivity and emerging variants.Heliyon · 2023Article
- The Diagnostic Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Nasal Rapid Antigen Self-Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The gold standard test available for detecting COVID-19 patients is Real Time RT-PCR. However, this method is expensive, needing special equipment and skilled laboratory staff. Recently, less expensive antigen tests have become available, that could easily and rapidly identify new COVID-19 cases. Our objective was to evaluate the Boson Rapid Antigen Test Card versus the RT-rtPCR, using samples taken both by laymen (self-testing) and professionals. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy rates were, 98.18%, 100.00%, and 99.28%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 100.00% and 98.82%, respectively. The detection rate for asymptomatic patients was 90.48%, and detection rate for Ct values ≥30 was 91.67%. Our results indicate a high coincidence rate between the Boson and the referencing RT-rtPCR method, meeting the performance standards recommended by the WHO. Therefore, this test could facilitate a fast self-testing screening method, for the detection of infected individuals.
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.