ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2023
Performance Evaluation of Five Rapid At-Home COVID-19 Antigen Tests against the Omicron Variant.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Post-market surveillance of six COVID-19 point-of-care tests using pre-Omicron and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Screening Strategies to Reduce COVID-19 Mortality in Nursing Homes.JAMA health forum · 2024Article
- One-pot MCDA-CRISPR-Cas-based detection platform for point-of-care testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- A single domain antibody-based Luminex assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- The Suitability of RNA from Positive SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Tests for Whole Virus Genome Sequencing and Variant Identification to Maintain Genomic Surveillance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Sensitivity of rapid antigen tests for Omicron subvariants of SARS-CoV-2.Journal of medical virology · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) antigen tests can be used to aid in quickly identifying positive cases, which can help mitigate the spread of COVID-19 infection. Using previously characterized Omicron-positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), non-Omicron-positive SARS-CoV-2, and negative samples, we evaluated five brands of at-home rapid COVID-19 antigen tests (On/Go at-home COVID-19 rapid antigen self-test, iHealth COVID-19 antigen rapid test, QuickVue SARS antigen test, Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 card home test, and InBios SCoV-2 Ag detect rapid self-test). Our results showed that these rapid tests had similar levels of sensitivity to Omicron and non-Omicron variants (On/Go, 76.4% and 71.0%; iHealth, 73.0% and 71.0%; QuickVue, 84.3% and 74.3%; BinaxNOW, 69.7% and 71.0%; and InBios, 66.3% and 64.5%, respectively). In conclusion, rapid COVID-19 antigen tests can continue to be used as part of public health measures to combat the spread of the Omicron variant, as their sensitivity was not significantly affected.
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.