ArticleAccess microbiology2022
Performance study of the anterior nasal AMP SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in comparison with nasopharyngeal rRT-PCR.
Article in Access microbiology, 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, 2 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
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The gold standard for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection is real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR), which is expensive, has a long turnaround time and requires special equipment and trained personnel. Nasopharyngeal swabs are uncomfortable, not suitable for certain patient groups and do not allow self-testing. Convenient, well-tolerated rapid antigen tests (RATs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection are called for. Gap statement: More real-life performance data on anterior nasal RATs are required. Aim: We set out to evaluate the anterior nasal AMP RAT in comparison with rRT-PCR in a hospital cohort. Methodology: The study included 175 patients, either hospitalized in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ward or screened in a preadmittance outpatient clinic. Two swabs were collected per patient: an anterior nasal one for the RAT and a combined naso-/oropharyngeal one for the rRT-PCR. Sixty-five patients (37%) were rRT-PCR-positive [cycle threshold ( Results: The anterior nasal AMP RAT showed an overall sensitivity and specificity of 29.2 % (18.6-41.8, 95 % CI) and 100.0 % (96.7-100.0, 95 % CI) respectively. In patients with a Conclusion: The anterior nasal AMP RAT showed low sensitivities in this cohort, especially in patients with a longer time since symptom onset. Further knowledge concerning the viral load and antigen expression over time and in different swabbing locations is needed to outline the usage time frame for SARS-CoV-2 RAT.
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.