ArticleJournal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy2023
Analytical sensitivity of six lateral flow antigen test kits for variant strains of SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Capacitive Immunosensor Based on a Polypyrrole-CTAB for Probe-Free Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein.Micromachines · 2026Article
- Piezoelectric Chemosensors and Biosensors in Medical Diagnostics.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Pushing the Limits of Lateral Flow Immunoassay by Digital SERS for the Ultralow Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus.Small science · 2024Article
- Designing and expression of novel recombinant fusion protein for efficient antigen screening of SARS-CoV-2.AMB Express · 2024Article
- Rapid assays of SARS-CoV-2 virus and noble biosensors by nanomaterials.Nano convergence · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe lateral flow antigen test is a useful tool for rapid diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The analytical sensitivity of six lateral flow antigen test kits was compared.
methodsThe limit of detection (LoD) and time to positive results were evaluated for six lateral flow tests including ImmunoArrow®, ESPLINE® SARS-CoV-2, QuickNavi™ COVID19 Ag, ImmunoAce® SARS-CoV-2, Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device, and SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test using the heat-inactivated virus. The LoD of ImmunoArrow® against the Omicron variants was compared with that against the wild-type using recombinant proteins.
resultsImmunoArrow® and ESPLINE® showed the lowest LoD. The time to positive results of all tests except for ESPLINE® was within 200 s in the evaluation at high dose of antigens (2.5 × 10
conclusionsImmunoArrow® detected SARS-CoV-2 antigens including the Omicron variants with good sensitivity among the six lateral flow antigen tests. These finding support that it can support the rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 with the good sensitivity.
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.