ArticleInfluenza and other respiratory viruses2022
The evaluation of an automated mariPOC SARS-CoV-2 antigen test compared to RT-qPCR SARS-CoV-2 assay and comparison of its sensitivity in Delta- and Omicron-variant samples.
Article in Influenza and other respiratory viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated antigen assays display a high heterogeneity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including several Omicron sublineages.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2023Article
- The evaluation of an automated mariPOC SARS-CoV-2 antigen test compared to RT-qPCR SARS-CoV-2 assay and comparison of its sensitivity in Delta- and Omicron-variant samples.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid diagnostics tests for SARS-CoV-2 antigen vary in their sensitivities, and moreover, genomic mutations may further affect the performance of the assays. We aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of an automated antigen assay and compare its sensitivity in Delta- and Omicron-variant positive clinical samples. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe analytical performance of an automated mariPOC SARS-CoV-2 antigen test was evaluated on a population of community-dwelling subjects with mild respiratory symptoms or being asymptomatic investigated by the RT-qPCR Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 assay. The sensitivity and specificity of the antigen test were evaluated on prospective 621 nasopharyngeal swabs along with oropharyngeal swabs. The sensitivity regarding variants determined by the Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 Variant assays was analysed in additional, retrospective 158 Delta and 59 Omicron samples.
resultsThe overall sensitivity of the antigen test in prospective samples was 77.9% (113/145; 95% confidence interval [CI] 70.3-84.4) with the specificity of 99.8% (95% CI 98.8-100). Regarding the variant, the sensitivity was higher in Omicron-variant samples, 93.2% (55/59; 95% CI 83.5-98.1), compared to Delta-variant samples, 71.5% (113/158; 95% CI 63.8-78.4; p = .001).
conclusionIn community-dwelling subjects with mild respiratory symptoms or being asymptomatic, the automated mariPOC SARS-CoV-2 antigen test showed high sensitivity over 98.0% in subgroup samples with cycle threshold (Ct) values < 25. Regarding the variant, the antigen test sensitivity was higher in the Omicron-variant samples compared to the Delta-variant samples. The analytical performance of the antigen test can differ between the SARS-CoV-2 variants, and a re-evaluation should be performed for new circulating lineages.
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.