ArticlePloS one2022
Diagnostic accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test among military and civilian personnel of an Air Force airport in central Italy.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Screening Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Infection at Correctional Facilities in Korea: March - May 2022.Infection & chemotherapy · 2023Article
- Characterization of SARS-CoV-2 Variants in Military and Civilian Personnel of an Air Force Airport during Three Pandemic Waves in Italy.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) validation studies have been performed on specimens from COVID-19 patients and negative controls or from mostly symptomatic individuals. Herein we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of AFIAS COVID-19 Ag, hereinafter denominated as AFIAS, during a COVID-19 screening program surveillance testing conducted among personnel of an Italian military airport.
methodsNasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) were collected from study participants and were analysed by both AFIAS and RT-PCR assay. A questionnaire collecting demographic and exposure data were administered to all participants. AFIAS accuracy parameters including Cohen's kappa (K) were determined.
resultsOverall, from November 2020 to April 2021, 1294 (NPSs) were collected from 1183 participants (88.6% males, 11.4% females; mean age were 41.3, median age 42). Forty-nine NPSs (3.78%) were positive by RT-PCR, while 54 NPSs were positive by AFIAS. Overall baseline sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 0.633, 0.981, 0.574, 0.985, respectively and K was 0.585 (moderate). AFIAS sensitivity tended to be higher for NPSs with higher viral load. A higher sensitivity (0.944) compared to the overall baseline sensitivity (0.633) was also found for NPSs from participants with COVID-19 compatible symptoms, for which K was 0.891 (almost perfect). Instead, AFIAS sensitivity was quite poor for NPSs from asymptomatic participants. Most false negative NPSs in this group had moderate viral load.
conclusionOverall, AFIAS showed high specificity but only moderate sensitivity, mainly because of the high proportion of asymptomatic participants. However, AFIAS showed good sensitivity for NPSs with high viral load and nearly optimal accuracy parameters for NPSs from participants with COVID-19 compatible symptoms. Thus, taking into consideration its performance features, this test can be useful for COVID-19 case identification and management as well as for infection control.
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.