ArticleJAMA network open2022
Accuracy of 2 Rapid Antigen Tests During 3 Phases of SARS-CoV-2 Variants.
Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of self-performed SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Inactivation of BSL-2 and BSL-3 human pathogens using FATHHOME's Trinion Disinfector: A rapid and eco-friendly ozone-based dry disinfection approach.Biosafety and health · 2025Article
- Real-world usage of mass rapid antigen testing for COVID-19 in long-term care facilities and support programmes: results from long-term surveillance in North-Eastern Germany.BMC public health · 2025Article
- SARS-CoV-2 viral load is linked to remdesivir efficacy in severe Covid-19 admitted to intensive care.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Virus variant-specific clinical performance of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test with focus on Omicron variants of concern.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2023Article
- Article
- The Diagnostic Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Nasal Rapid Antigen Self-Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Error in Byline.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 rapid diagnostic testing: Canadian consensus guidance for pharmacists.Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPCArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedError in Byline.2022
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Variants of SARS-CoV-2 have sequence variations in the viral genome that may alter the accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests. Objective: To assess the analytical and clinical accuracy of 2 rapid diagnostic tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 during 3 phases of variants. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study included participants aged 18 years or older who reported onset of COVID-19-like symptoms within the prior 5 days and were tested at multiple COVID-19 testing locations in King County, Washington, from February 17, 2021, to January 11, 2022, during 3 distinct phases of SARS-CoV-2 infection (pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron). Interventions: Two anterior nasal swab specimens were collected from each participant-1 for onsite testing by the SCoV-2 Ag Detect Rapid Self-Test and 1 for reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: The analytical limit of detection of the 2 rapid diagnostic tests (SCoV-2 Ag Detect Rapid Self-Test and BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card) was assessed using Omicron (B.1.1.529/BA.1), Delta (B.1.617.2), and a wild-type (USA-WA1/2020) variant. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of clinical testing for the rapid antigen tests were compared with that of RT-PCR testing. Results: A total of 802 participants were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 37.3 [13.3] years; 467 [58.2%] female), 424 (52.9%) of whom had not received COVID-19 vaccination and presented a median of 2 days (IQR, 1-3 days) from symptom onset. Overall, no significant differences were found in the analytical limit of detection or clinical diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen testing across SARS-CoV-2 variants. The estimated limit of detection for both rapid nucleocapsid antigen tests was at or below a 50% tissue culture infectious dose of 62.5, and the positive percent agreement of the SCoV-2 Ag Detect Rapid Self-Test ranged from 81.2% (95% CI, 69.5%-89.9%) to 90.7% (95% CI, 77.9%-97.4%) across the 3 phases of variants. The diagnostic sensitivity increased for nasal swabs with a lower cycle threshold by RT-PCR, which correlates with a higher viral load. Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic study, analytical and clinical performance data demonstrated accuracy of 2 rapid antigen tests among adults with COVID-19 symptoms across 3 phases of SARS-CoV-2 variants. The findings suggest that home-based rapid antigen testing programs may be an important intervention to reduce global SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
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.