ArticleBMC medicine2022
Head-to-head comparison of the accuracy of saliva and nasal rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 self-testing: cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Acceptability of self-sampling and self-testing for infections: a rapid systematic review on public users' views.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing (January 2023).Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Guideline
- Comparing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling with molecular and professional-use tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- COVID-19 rapid antigen tests approved for self-testing in Australia: published diagnostic test accuracy studies and manufacturer-supplied information. A systematic review.The Medical journal of Australia · 2023Pooled it
- Determining the optimal frequency of SARS-CoV-2 regular asymptomatic testing: A randomized feasibility trial in a home care setting.PloS one · 2024Trial
- Identifying the optimal rapid antigen test for screening and determining the end of isolation: A modeling study.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of saliva-based testing as a Vibrio cholerae surveillance tool among naturally infected patients.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2025Article
- Article
- Ferrimagnetic Tb/Co multilayers patterned by ion bombardment as substrates for magnetophoresis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Development and Diagnosis Performance of IgM-Based Rapid Antigen Test for Early Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Large Cohort of Suspected COVID-19 Cases - USA, Poland, and Sweden, 2021-2022.China CDC weekly · 2024Article
- Estimating the impact of COVID-19 self-test availability and modifications in test-strategy on overall test uptake using an experimental vignette study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Self-administered versus clinician-performed BinaxNOW COVID rapid test: a comparison of accuracy.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a new molecular test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in salivary samples.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2023Article
- Sensitivity of rapid antigen tests against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta variants.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2023Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the omicron period: a cross-sectional study.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnostic accuracy of unsupervised self-testing with rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) is mostly unknown. We studied the diagnostic accuracy of a self-performed SARS-CoV-2 saliva and nasal Ag-RDT in the general population.
methodsThis large cross-sectional study consecutively included unselected individuals aged ≥ 16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three public health service test sites. Participants underwent molecular test sampling and received two self-tests (the Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self-test and the SD Biosensor nasal self-test by Roche Diagnostics) to perform themselves at home. Diagnostic accuracy of both self-tests was assessed with molecular testing as reference.
resultsOut of 2819 participants, 6.5% had a positive molecular test. Overall sensitivities were 46.7% (39.3-54.2%) for the saliva Ag-RDT and 68.9% (61.6-75.6%) for the nasal Ag-RDT. With a viral load cut-off (≥ 5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL) as a proxy of infectiousness, these sensitivities increased to 54.9% (46.4-63.3%) and 83.9% (76.9-89.5%), respectively. For the nasal Ag-RDT, sensitivities were 78.5% (71.1-84.8%) and 22.6% (9.6-41.1%) in those symptomatic and asymptomatic at the time of sampling, which increased to 90.4% (83.8-94.9%) and 38.9% (17.3-64.3%) after applying the viral load cut-off. In those with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, sensitivities were 36.8% (16.3-61.6%) and 72.7% (65.1-79.4%). Specificities were > 99% and > 99%, positive predictive values > 70% and > 90%, and negative predictive values > 95% and > 95%, for the saliva and nasal Ag-RDT, respectively, in most analyses. Most participants considered the self-performing and result interpretation (very) easy for both self-tests.
conclusionsThe Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self Ag-RDT is not reliable for SARS-CoV-2 detection, overall, and in all studied subgroups. The SD Biosensor nasal self Ag-RDT had high sensitivity in individuals with symptoms and in those without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection but low sensitivity in asymptomatic individuals and those with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection which warrants further investigation.
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.