ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
Knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection and proper use of rapid diagnostic self-test among Shanghai residents in China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating fractional-order SEI1I2I3QCR model with awareness and non-pharmaceutical interventions for optimal COVID-19 pandemic.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Knowledge and willingness toward SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing among older adults in China: a nationwide cross-sectional study.Aging clinical and experimental research · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess and evaluate the knowledge of Shanghai, China, residents on the use of SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection and rapid diagnostic self-test. Methods: A cross-sectional electronic survey using a self-administered questionnaire was sent Results: A total of 283 participants were recruited between July 1, 2022 and July 20, 2022 through an online survey. The mean score of knowledge on the tests was 14.33 ± 2.85 (out of 21). The questions concerning the depth of swab insertion and minimum number of swab rotations in the nostril, necessity of bilateral sampling, necessity of rotating and squeezing the swab for 10 times in the extraction buffer tube, and waiting time for the results showed the highest rate of incorrect responses. In the multiple regression analysis model, sex, social status, and source of information were associated with the knowledge on the self-test kits. Conclusion: Immediate health education programs should be made available and the kits could be improved appropriately to ensure adequate knowledge. The use of technology should be fully leveraged to achieve accurate self-diagnosis and correct interpretation of the results.
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.