Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36702617›Full record

GuidelineClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2024

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing (January 2023).

Mary K Hayden, Kimberly E Hanson, Janet A Englund, Francesca Lee, Mark J Lee, Mark Loeb, Daniel J Morgan, Robin Patel, Abdallah El Alayli, Ibrahim K El Mikati and 9 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readPractice GuidelineSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Guideline in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing (December 2023).Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 15 institutions in 2 countries.

Mary K HaydenDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Kimberly E HansonDivisions of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Janet A EnglundDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Francesca LeeDepartments of Pathology and Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Mark J LeeDepartment of Pathology and Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Mark LoebDivision of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Daniel J MorganDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Robin PatelDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, and the Division of Public Health, Infectious Diseases, and Occupational Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abdallah El AlayliDepartment of Internal Medicine, Saint Louis University, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Ibrahim K El MikatiOutcomes and Implementation Research Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
Shahnaz SultanDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis VA Healthcare System, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Yngve Falck-YtterDepartment of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Razan MansourDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
Justin Z AmarinDivision of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Rebecca L MorganDepartment of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
M Hassan MuradDivision of Public Health, Infectious diseases and occupational Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Payal PatelDepartment of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Adarsh BhimrajDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Reem A MustafaDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
University of Kansas Medical Center · USMayo Clinic · USMcMaster University · CACleveland Clinic · USDuke University · USEmory University · USMinneapolis VA Health Care System · USRush University Medical Center · USSaint Louis University · USSeattle Children's Hospital · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USUniversity of Utah · USUniversity School · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

CDC HHS NU50CK000477-04-01HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens (Ag) are commonly used to diagnose COVID-19. The most widely used tests are lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays have also been developed. The number of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection tests has increased rapidly, as has the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is an update to the third in a series of frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by the IDSA. IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and nonmedical settings. A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. A review of relevant, peer-reviewed published literature was conducted through 1 April 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel made 10 diagnostic recommendations that address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared with nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Ag test sensitivity is dependent on the presence or absence of symptoms and, in symptomatic patients, on timing of testing after symptom onset. In most cases, positive Ag results can be acted upon without confirmation. Results of point-of-care testing are comparable to those of laboratory-based testing, and observed or unobserved self-collection of specimens for testing yields similar results. Modeling suggests that repeat Ag testing increases sensitivity compared with testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the testing methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when timely molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing helps identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were insufficient to make a recommendation about the utility of Ag testing to guide release of patients with COVID-19 from isolation. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

Indexed as

Antigens, ViralCOVID-19COVID-19 Serological TestingSARS-CoV-2COVID-19 TestingHumansImmunoassaySensitivity and SpecificityUnited StatesAntigens, Viraldiagnostic testingdiagnostic test performancerapid antigen testsSARS-CoV-2systematic review

Identifiers

PMID36702617
PMCPMC12098014
OpenAlexW4318192713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.