Observational studyItalian journal of pediatrics2022
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen detection in the Emergency Department: data from a pediatric cohort during the fourth COVID-19 wave in Italy.
Observational study in Italian journal of pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of the detection accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2023Pooled it
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSevere Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has been challenging health care systems and made it necessary to use rapid and cost-effective testing methods, particularly in Emergency Department (ED) settings. Rapid Antigen Diagnostic Tests (RADTs) are a valid alternative to the gold standard RT-PCR, even in pediatric populations. This retrospective observational study has been conducted on a pediatric cohort afferent to the ED of the San Giovanni di Dio and Ruggi d'Aragona University Hospital in Salerno, tested at Point of Care with RADT Panbio® (Abbott), from September 1
methodsData regarding access to the pediatric ED were extracted from the hospital's electronic database system. Parallel to this, we conducted a narrative literature search using PubMed database focusing on the use of RADT in pediatric ED and compared our data with the national pandemic trend.
resultsDuring the observation period, 1890 patients were tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 with RADT and the 2.7% of children resulted positive, with a peak in January 2022. The main symptoms in positive patients were: fever (n = 34; 66.7%), cough (n = 11; 21.5%), headache (n = 4; 7.8%), chest pain (n = 2; 3.9%) and abdominal pain (n = 1; 2%). Patients were divided into three different age groups (A, B, C) basing on the different access timing to vaccination; no statistically significant difference was detected in the distribution of positivity in these three groups (p > 0.05). Number of positive children in group A was greater in the post-vaccine group. Our data are concordant with the national trend of the pandemic showing a fourth wave peak in January 2022.
conclusionThe use of RADT as a first point-of-care screening may be helpful, time-saving and cost-sparing. Our study shows that, during the observation period, most children admitted to the ED for fever, actually tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a statistically greater difference than negative children. Instead, number of patients admitted for cough was statistically higher among negative than positive ones, probably due to the circulation of other respiratory viruses in children.
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.