Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36403314›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology2023

SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests for screening of healthcare workers; experience with over 48,000 combined antigen tests and RT-PCR tests.

A Piek, M Knoester, L Gard, M Lokate, H G M Niesters, C L van Leer-Buter

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A PiekUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Division of Clinical Virology, Groningen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: a.piek@umcg.nl.
M KnoesterUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Division of Clinical Virology, Groningen, the Netherlands.
L GardUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Division of Clinical Virology, Groningen, the Netherlands.
M LokateUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Division of Clinical Virology, Groningen, the Netherlands.
H G M NiestersUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Division of Clinical Virology, Groningen, the Netherlands.
C L van Leer-ButerUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Division of Clinical Virology, Groningen, the Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo prevent spread to patients and co-workers, health care workers (HCWs) infected with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) should quickly be identified. Although real time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the gold standard, this test takes several hours, during which a HCW is unable to work. Antigen (Ag) tests may be an efficacious means of screening HCWs since they are easy to perform and provide fast results.

methodsIn this study, 48,010 paired results of Ag-testing and RT-PCR, performed on HCWs between January 2021 and April 2022, were evaluated to determine the diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-tests in diagnosing potentially infectious individuals. This analysis was performed with cycling threshold values (Ct-values) ≤30 and ≤25 as cut-offs.

resultsRespectively 3.1% (n = 1507) and 0.3% (n = 140) of Ag-tests were positive or indeterminate, and thus indicative for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In total, 2479 (5.2%) RT-PCRs were positive, of which 1529 (61.7%) had a Ct-value ≤25 and 402 (16.2%) a Ct-value between 26 and 30. At Ct-value ≤30 as a cut-off, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of Ag-tests were 79.0%, 99.8%, 93.8% and 99.1%, respectively. At Ct-value ≤25, sensitivity further improved to 92.0%, by which the NPV increased to 99.7%.

conclusionsTo prevent transmission from HCWs to patients and co-workers, while maintaining workforce capacity, Ag-tests are a valuable addition to RT-PCR tests, as they have a quick turnaround time and excellent sensitivity for identifying individuals with high potential for transmission.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Health PersonnelHumansImmunologic TestsReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityAntigen testHealth care workerHospital managementInfection preventionReal-time polymerase chain reactionSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID36403314
PMCPMC9652101
OpenAlexW4309515031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.