ArticleJournal of medical biochemistry2022
Critical literature review and pooled analysis of diagnostic accuracy of Ortho VITROS SARS-CoV-2 antigen test for diagnosing acute SARS-CoV-2 infections.
Article in Journal of medical biochemistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The present study is aimed at reviewing and meta-analyzing the currently published data on the diagnostic accuracy of Ortho VITROS SARS-CoV-2 antigen test for diagnosing acute SARS-CoV-2 infections. Methods: An electronic search was conducted in Scopus and Medline with the keywords "VITROS" AND "antigen" AND "COVID-19" OR "SARS-CoV-2" AND "immunoassay" within the search fields "TITLE" AND "ABSTRACT" AND "KEYWORDS", without no date (i.e., up to January 23, 2022) or language restrictions, aimed at detecting documents reporting the diagnostic accuracy of this SARSCoV-2 immunoassay compared with reference molecular diagnostic methods. Results: Overall, 5 studies (n=2734 samples) were finally included in our pooled analysis, four of which also provided diagnostic sensitivity in oro-and nasopharyngeal samples with high viral load. The pooled cumulative diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 (95%CI, 0.78-0.86) and 1.00 (95%CI, 1.00-1.00), respectively, whilst the area under the curve was 0.995 (95%CI, 0.993-0.997), the cumulative agreement 97.2% (95%CI, 96.5-97.8%), with 0.89 (95%CI, 0.86-0.91) kappa statistics, thus reflecting an almost perfect concordance with reference molecular biology techniques. The pooled diagnostic sensitivity in samples with high viral load was as high as 0.98 (95%CI, 0.96-0.99). Conclusions: These results confirm that the automated and high-throughput Ortho VITROS SARS-CoV-2 antigen test may represent a valuable surrogate of molecular testing for diagnosing acute SARS-CoV-2 infections, especially in subjects with high viral load.
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.