ArticlePloS one2022
Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of PanbioTM Abbott SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test for the detection of COVID-19 from suspects attending ALERT center.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Article
- SARS-CoV-2 recombinase polymerase amplification assay with lateral flow readout and duplexed full process internal control.Sensors & diagnostics · 2024Article
- Article
- Rapid Antigen Tests during the COVID-19 Era in Korea and Their Implementation as a Detection Tool for Other Infectious Diseases.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Evaluation of the performance of Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic test for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at Harar, Eastern Ethiopia.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe emergence and rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a potentially lethal disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), is causing public health issues around the world. In resource-constrained nations, rapid Abbott SARS-CoV-2 antigen test kits are critical for addressing diagnostic gaps in health institutions and community screening. However, there is no evidence or proof of diagnostic performance in Ethiopia. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of PanbioTM Abbott SARS-CoV-2antigen rapid test kit to the gold standard, RT-PCR, in COVID-19 patients with clinical symptoms suggestive of COVID-19.
methodA prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted between November 2021 and April 2022, on 120 suspected patients recruited from outpatient, emergency, and intensive care units in one of the tertiary hospitals in Ethiopia. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from suspected cases and were tested using the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 kit, a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) and compared to the reference standard RT-PCR.
resultThe sensitivity and specificity of the RDT were 74.2% and 100%, respectively. A total of 62 samples (51.6%) were RT-PCR positive. Of these, 46 were Ag-RDT positive. Sensitivity among symptomatic patients was 79.4% (95% CI 68.3-90). The Abbot RDT and RT-PCR had a Kappa value of agreement of 0.735 (p < 0.001). These values were acceptable when compared to the WHO's suggested thresholds.
conclusionThe finding from this study support the use of the Abbot RDT as a diagnostic tool in COVID-19 suspects, mainly in those with higher viral loads.
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.