ArticleJournal of clinical virology plus2023
Accuracy of an antigen-detecting SARS-CoV-2 assay with self- and provider-collected specimens interpreted visually and with BD Veritor™ Plus analyzer.
Article in Journal of clinical virology plus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (RATs) are in high demand for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Reduced involvement from health care professionals (HCPs) for collection and interpretation could significantly foster the wide-spread implementation of RATs, but data evaluating RATs, when used by lay people, is limited. Objective: To valuate agreement between BD Veritor test results for self- and HCP-collected specimens, and visually- and analyzer-interpreted results. Methods: Individuals with onset of COVID-19 symptoms within five days of enrollment had three nasal swabs collected; one self-collected and the other two HCP-collected. One HCP-collected swab was stored for future testing while the order of the other two (self and HCP) was randomized before testing. with the BD Veritor System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2. Results were first assessed visually, followed by interpretation with the analyzer. Results: When self-collection was compared to HCP collection for SARS-CoV-2 detection, interpretation by analyzer resulted in positive percent agreement (PPA) of 94.7% (95% CI 82.7, 98.5) and negative percent agreement (NPA) of 99.0% (95% CI 97.5, 99.6). When visual interpretation was compared to analyzer-read results, collection by HCPs had a PPA of 97.4% (95% CI 86.5, 99.5) and NPA of 99.8% (95% CI 98.6, 100.0) while self-collection resulted in PPA of 94.9% (95% CI 83.1, 98.6) and NPA of 99.8% (95% CI 98.6, 100). Conclusions: Similar PPA and NPA were observed for self- and HCP-collected specimens as well as visually- and analyzer-interpreted tests. The equivalence in performance supports the use of expanded collection and testing methods.
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.