ArticleBiomedicines2022
Clinical Performance of Self-Collected Nasal Swabs and Antigen Rapid Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Resource-Poor Settings.
Article in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Virology journal · 2024Pooled it
- Feasibility and acceptability of COVID-19 self-testing offered through community screening posts in Mozambique: a mixed-methods study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Feasibility and Effectiveness of Using Community Testing Centers to Increase Access to COVID-19 Testing Services in Urban Mozambique.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Evaluation of COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing in Lesotho and Zambia.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: In resource-poor countries, antigen-based rapid tests (Ag-RDTs) performed at primary healthcare and community settings improved access to SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. However, the technical skills and biosafety requirements inherent to nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal (OP) specimens limit the scale-up of SARS-CoV-2 testing. The collection of nasal-swabs is programmatically viable, but its performance has not been evaluated in resource-poor settings. Methods: We first evaluated the performance of SteriPack self-collected nasal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by real-time PCR in 1498 consecutively enrolled patients with suspected infection. Next, we evaluated the clinical performance of three nasal swab-based Ag-RDTs against real-time PCR on OP specimens. Results: The sensitivity of nasal swabs was 80.6% [95% CI: 75.3−85.2%] compared to OP specimens. There was a good correlation (r = 0.58; p < 0.0001) between Ct values of 213 positive cases obtained using nasal and OP swabs. Our findings show sensitivities of 79.7% [95% CI: 73.3−85.1%] for Panbio COVID-19 Ag-RDT, 59.6% [95% CI: 55.2−63.8%] for COVIOS Ag-RDT, and 78.0% [95% CI: 73.5−82.0%] for the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Conclusions: In our setting, the COVIOS Ag-RDT did not meet WHO requirements. Nasal swab-based Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 detection constitute a viable and accurate diagnostic option in resource-poor settings.
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.