ArticleInfection2023
The evaluation results of proposed antigen rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: some possible factors might influence.
Article in Infection, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association Between Rapid Antigen Detection Tests and Real-Time Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.International journal of public health · 2023Pooled it
- Designing and expression of novel recombinant fusion protein for efficient antigen screening of SARS-CoV-2.AMB Express · 2024Article
- Laboratory Evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP Test.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn addition to existing gold standard qRT-PCR methods, there is a need to develop reliable rapid tests for infection control with early notification of COVID-19 cases to enable effective outbreak management. We evaluated the validity of the three Ag-RDT kits proposed by some companies in different countries by using qRT-PCR and analyzed its results.
methodsEach of the three Ag-RDT kits (namely A, B, and C) was tested with 90 samples, consisting of samples with Ct ≤ 25, samples with Ct > 25, and negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR samples.
resultsThis study showed that for samples with Ct > 25, all the three kits could not detect SARS-CoV-2 Ag (0% sensitivity) but showed 100% specificity. Meanwhile, for samples with Ct ≤ 25, kit C was the best (76.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity). The PPV of the three kits was 100%, but their NPV ranged 63-84.8%. Kit C showed the best accuracy (89.9%). Some factors might influence the results of evaluation, such as variation of virus proteins and transportation-storage of the kits.
conclusionThe overall specificity of the three kits for all samples was high; however, all of them have not met the minimum performance requirements of ≥ 80% sensitivity for samples with Ct ≤ 25. The validation test is much necessary to be carried out by the authority in national health care to ensure the feasibility of the kit for point-of-care testing (POCT) of COVID-19. Some factors that might influence should be anticipated to increase their sensitivities and specificities.
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.