ArticleTalanta open2023
Analytical sensitivity of COVID-19 rapid antigen tests: A case for a robust reference standard.
Article in Talanta open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A rapid test for protein-DNA interactions.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Selective Wettability-Driven Evaporation-Enhanced Redox Cycling for Robust and Ultrasensitive Detection of Viral Particles.Small methods · 2026Article
- Factors influencing uptake of diagnostic test interventions for SARS-CoV-2: A qualitative review.Journal of public health in Africa · 2025Review
- 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
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aggressive diagnostic testing remains an indispensable strategy for health and aged care facilities to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in vulnerable populations. The preferred diagnostic platform has shifted towards COVID-19 rapid antigen tests (RATs) to identify the most infectious individuals. As such, RATs are being manufactured faster than at any other time in our history yet lack the relevant quantitative analytics required to inform on absolute analytical sensitivity enabling manufacturers to maintain high batch-to-batch reproducibility, and end-users to accurately compare brands for decision making. Here, we describe a novel reference standard to measure and compare the analytical sensitivity of RATs using a recombinant GFP-tagged nucleocapsid protein (NP-GFP). Importantly, we show that the GFP tag does not interfere with NP detection and provides several advantages affording streamlined protein expression and purification in high yields as well as faster, cheaper and more sensitive quality control measures for post-production assessment of protein solubility and stability. Ten commercial COVID-19 RATs were evaluated and ranked using NP-GFP as a reference standard. Analytical sensitivity data of the selected devices as determined with NP-GFP did not correlate with those reported by the manufacturers using the median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID
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.