ArticlePloS one2022
Evaluating diagnostic accuracies of Panbio™ test and RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia using Bayesian Latent-Class Models (BLCM).
Article in PloS one, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The diagnostic performance evaluation of Panbio and STANDARD Q coronavirus disease 2019 antigen tests against real-time polymerase chain reaction in southern Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- COVID-19 in Morocco's region: Observational study of prevalence in symptomatic adults using the PANBIOS® rapid antigen test September 2021.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2023Observational
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid diagnostics are vital for curving the transmission and control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although many commercially available antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 are recommended by the WHO, their diagnostic performance has not yet been assessed in Ethiopia. So far, the vast majority of studies assessing diagnostic accuracies of rapid antigen tests considered RT-PCR as a reference standard, which inevitably leads to bias when RT-PCR is not 100% sensitive and specific. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of Panbio™ jointly with the RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
methodsA prospective cross-sectional study was done from July to September 2021 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, during the third wave of the pandemic involving two health centers and two hospitals. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of Panbio™ and RT-PCR were obtained using Bayesian Latent-Class Models (BLCM).
results438 COVID-19 presumptive clients were enrolled, 239 (54.6%) were females, of whom 196 (44.7%) had a positive RT-PCR and 158 (36.1%) were Panbio™ positive. The Panbio™ and RT-PCR had a sensitivity (95% CrI) of 99.6 (98.4-100) %, 89.3 (83.2-97.6) % and specificity (95% CrI) of 93.4 (82.3-100) %, and 99.1 (97.5-100) %, respectively. Most of the study participants, 318 (72.6%) exhibited COVID-19 symptoms; the most reported was cough 191 (43.6%).
conclusionAs expected the RT-PCR performed very well with a near-perfect specificity and a high, but not perfect sensitivity. The diagnostic performance of Panbio™ is coherent with the WHO established criteria of having a sensitivity ≥80% for Ag-RDTs. Both tests displayed high diagnostic accuracies in patients with and without symptoms. Hence, we recommend the use of the Panbio™ for both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals in clinical settings for screening purposes.
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.