ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2023
The sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 rapid anti-gene test in comparison to RT-PCR test as a gold standard test.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative proteomics of human naso-oropharyngeal swabs from COVID19 patients for identification of potential biomarker candidates.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Article
- Highly sensitive fluorescent lateral flow immunoassay based on core-shell PS@Dip@SiOMikrochimica acta · 2026Article
- Awareness and Use of Home-Based Respiratory Pathogen Testing Services in the Internet Era: Postpandemic Questionnaire Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- A policy roadmap for sustainable mass-testing.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- ISFET Biosensor with Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification for Electronic Rapid Detection of Mycoplasma Pneumoniae.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- An Ultra-Compact and Low-Cost LAMP-Based Virus Detection Device.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Machine Learning Techniques for Effective Pathogen Detection Based on Resonant Biosensors.Biosensors · 2023Article
- The sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 rapid anti-gene test in comparison to RT-PCR test as a gold standard test.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a modern infectious disease, first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. The etiology is via severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in a pandemic manner. The study aimed to compare between RT-PCR and rapid anti-gene tests for COVID-19 with regard to sensitivity and specificity.
methodsThis is a cohort hospital-based study done during the period of July to September 2020. Both rapid anti-gene test kit (SARS-CoV-2) and RT-qPCR were used for the detection of COVID-19 in suspected cases.
resultsA total of 148 cases were tested using both the RT-qPCR and rapid test. Twenty-nine (19.6%) of these cases had positive results for RT-qPCR and 119 (80.4%) were negative, whereas 52 (35.1%) patients were positive to rapid anti-gene test and 96 (64.9%) of them negative. The sensitivity of the rapid test was 37.9%, the specificity was 65.5% and the accuracy was 64.44%. Rapid IgG test was positive in 47 (31.8) of cases. Although, rapid IgM test was positive in 18 (12.2%). The rapid IgG test was more sensitive than rapid IgM (Sensitivity 34.48% vs. 3.45%), but it was less specific than rapid IgM test (Specificity 68.91% vs. 85.71%).
conclusionWe cannot consider rapid anti-gene test alone as a diagnostic method for COVID-19. We should also conduct RT-PCR test and other investigations like imaging CT scan of chest to confirm the diagnosis. The rapid IgG test is more sensitive than rapid IgM, but it was less specific.
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.