ArticleInfection2023
A pilot surveillance report of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test results among volunteers in Germany, 1st week of July 2022.
Article in Infection, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Population health and implementation outcomes of self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 using antigen detecting diagnostics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Self-testing for 5 respiratory viruses in adult VACCELERATE volunteers in Germany-a pilot study on multi-pathogen rapid antigen testing to monitor community-acquired acute respiratory infections.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Self-tests for COVID-19: What is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023).PLOS global public health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 infection numbers reported by governmental institutions are underestimated due to high dark figures as only results from polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are incorporated in governmental statistics and testing capacities were further restricted as of July, 2022.
methodsA point prevalence investigation was piloted by rapid antigen testing (RAT) among participants of the VACCELERATE volunteer registry. 2400 volunteers were contacted, of which 500 received a RAT including instructions for self-testing in the first week of July, 2022. Results were self-reported via e-mail.
results419 valid RAT results were collected until July 7th, 2022. Between July-1 and July-7, 2022, 7/419 (1.67%) tests were positive. Compared to reports of the German Federal Government, our results suggest a more than twofold higher prevalence. Three out of seven positive individuals did not have a PCR test and are therefore likely not to be displayed in governmental statistics.
conclusionOur findings imply that the actual prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 may be higher than detected by current surveillance systems, so that current pandemic surveillance and testing strategies may be adapted.
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.