ReviewIranian journal of public health2023
Detection of Antibody versus Antigen, Optimal Option of Different Serological Assays Based Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Iranian journal of public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic value of antibody testing in comparison with lung scan and PCR in patients suspected of having COVID-19.Iranian journal of microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In this study, the diagnostic efficacy of antigen test and antibody test were assessed. Additionally, the difference of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were compared concerning efficacy of antibody test versus antigen test for Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis. Methods: Online databases were searched for full-text publications and STATA software was used for data pooling and analysis before Sep 1st, 2022. Forrest plot was used to show the pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio. Combined receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to show the area of under curve of complex data. Results: Overall, 25 studies were included. The sensitivity (0.68, 95% CI: 0.53-0.80) and specificity (0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-0.99) in antibody or antigen was calculated. The time point of test lead to heterogeneity. The area under curve (AUC) was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-0.99), and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 299.54 (95% CI: 135.61-661.64). Subgroup analysis indicated antibody test with sensitivity (0.59, 95% CI: 0.44-0.73) and specificity (0.98, 95% CI: 0.95-0.99) and antigen test with sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.53-0.91) and specificity of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.00). Higher AUC and DOR were proved in antigen test. Conclusion: The present study compared the efficacy of antibody test versus antigen test for COVID-19 diagnosis. Better diagnostic efficacy, lower heterogeneity, and less publication bias of rapid antigen testing was suggested in this study. This study would help us to make better strategy about choosing rapid and reliable testing method in diagnosis of the COVID-19 disease.
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.