Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36210936›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2022

Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test from self-collected anterior nasal swabs in children compared to rapid antigen test and RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal swabs collected by healthcare workers: A multicentric prospective study.

Robert Cohen, Camille Aupiais, Anne Filleron, Fabienne Cahn-Sellem, Olivier Romain, Stéphane Béchet, Anne Auvrignon, Christophe Batard, Brigitte Virey, Camille Jung and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Robert CohenAssociation Clinique et Thérapeutique Infantile du Val-de-Marne (ACTIV), Créteil, France.
Camille AupiaisAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Robert Debré University Hospital, ECEVE INSERM UMR 1123, Université de Paris, Paris, France.
Anne FilleronDepartment of Pediatrics, CHU Nîmes, University of Montpellier, Nîmes, France.
Fabienne Cahn-SellemAssociation Française de Pédiatrie Ambulatoire (AFPA), Orléans, France.
Olivier RomainAssociation Française de Pédiatrie Ambulatoire (AFPA), Orléans, France.
Stéphane BéchetAssociation Clinique et Thérapeutique Infantile du Val-de-Marne (ACTIV), Créteil, France.
Anne AuvrignonAssociation Française de Pédiatrie Ambulatoire (AFPA), Orléans, France.
Christophe BatardAssociation Française de Pédiatrie Ambulatoire (AFPA), Orléans, France.
Brigitte VireyAssociation Française de Pédiatrie Ambulatoire (AFPA), Orléans, France.
Camille JungClinical Research Center, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, Créteil, France.
Alexis RybakAssociation Clinique et Thérapeutique Infantile du Val-de-Marne (ACTIV), Créteil, France.
Corinne LevyAssociation Clinique et Thérapeutique Infantile du Val-de-Marne (ACTIV), Créteil, France.
Association Française de Pédiatrie Ambulatoire · FRInserm · FRAssociation Clinique et Thérapeutique Infantile du Val de Marne · FRHôpital Intercommunal de Créteil · FRUniversité de Nîmes · FRUniversité Paris-Saclay · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Testing for SARS-CoV-2 is central to COVID-19 management. Rapid antigen test from self-collected anterior nasal swabs (SCANS-RAT) are often used in children but their performance have not been assessed in real-life. We aimed to compare this testing method to the two methods usually used: reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction from nasopharyngeal swabs collected by healthcare workers (HCW-PCR) and rapid antigen test from nasopharyngeal swabs collected by healthcare workers (HCW-RAT), estimating the accuracy and acceptance, in a pediatric real-life study. From September 2021 to January 2022, we performed a manufacturer-independent cross-sectional, prospective, multicenter study involving 74 pediatric ambulatory centers and 5 emergency units throughout France. Children ≥6 months to 15 years old with suggestive symptoms of COVID-19 or children in contact with a COVID-19-positive patient were prospectively enrolled. We included 836 children (median 4 years), 774 (92.6%) were symptomatic. The comparators were HCW-PCR for 267 children, and HCW-RAT for 593 children. The sensitivity of the SCANS-RAT test compared to HCW-RAT was 91.3% (95%CI 82.8; 96.4). Sensitivity was 70.4% (95%CI 59.2; 80.0) compared to all HCW-PCR and 84.6% (95%CI 71.9; 93.1) when considering cycle threshold <33. The specificity was always >97%. Among children aged ≥6 years, 90.9% of SCANS-RAT were self-collected without adult intervention. On appreciation rating (from 1, very pleasant, to 10, very unpleasant), 77.9% of children chose a score ≤3. SCANS-RAT have good sensitivity and specificity and are well accepted by children. A repeated screening strategy using these tests can play a major role in controlling the pandemic.

Indexed as

ambulatory settingCOVID-19pediatricself-testtest

Identifiers

PMID36210936
PMCPMC9532740
OpenAlexW4297879957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.