ArticleEplasty2022
Group A Streptococcal Rapid Antigen Detection Test: A Clinical Study to Evaluate the Reproducibility Using Human Wound Samples.
Article in Eplasty, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Usefulness and Description of the Test Puncture Method for Necrotizing Fasciitis Caused by Group A β-HemolyticJournal of plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Rapid diagnostic testing for GAS necrotizing fasciitis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The early diagnosis of necrotizing soft tissue infection (NSTI) caused by group A streptococcus (GAS) for performing debridement surgery is key to the patient survival. In 1996, the diversional use of a GAS-rapid antigen detection test (RADT) for pharyngitis was reported, quickly spreading as a clinically useful method. However, no clinical study has evaluated the reliability of RADT by using wound samples. This is the first study using clinical wound samples to examine the reproducibility between GAS-RADT and wound culture. Methods: Patients in whom wound culture samples were clinically necessary were included in this study. Two samples were obtained simultaneously: one for isolation of bacteria as wound culture and the other for GAS-RADT, with written informed consent. The reproducibility between GAS-RADT and wound culture was statistically evaluated by Cohen's kappa coefficient. Results: One hundred samples from 94 patients were collected from 2020 to 2021. Two samples were GAS-positive on wound culture, and both were RADT-positive (positive reproducibility: 100%). Ninety-eight samples were GAS-negative on wound culture; of these, 97 were RADT-negative (negative reproducibility: 99%). Cohen's kappa coefficient was 0.80, indicating excellent agreement beyond chance. None of the bacteria showed cross-reactional influences. The only discrepant case (RADT-positive and wound culture-negative) was attributed to the administration of antibiotics for 2 days before the sampling. Conclusions: The reproducibility between GAS-RADT and wound culture was statistically excellent, underscoring the reliability of GAS-RADT for wounds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36448051PMC9664372What 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.