Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36827328›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2023

Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: A prospective comparative clinical trial.

Jean-Marc Schwob, Alix Miauton, Dusan Petrovic, Jean Perdrix, Nicolas Senn, Alexandre Gouveia, Katia Jaton, Onya Opota, Alain Maillard, Gianni Minghelli and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04613310 (PCR and Rapid Diagnostic Test on Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swabs for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2), which is not on this map. Cited by 36 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04613310 nacompletednot on this map

PCR and Rapid Diagnostic Test on Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swabs for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2: a Comparative Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisante), University of Lausanne, SwitzerlandRan2020 to 2020Enrolled949ConditionsCOVID-19, SARS-CoV-2ArmsRapid Diagnostic Test vs PCR
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Real-world clinical performance of commercial SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests in suspected COVID-19: A systematic meta-analysis of available data as of November 20, 2020.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines: diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Accuracy of saliva and nasopharyngeal sampling for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in community screening: a multicentric cohort study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021
    Article
  17. Review
  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

14 authors.

Jean-Marc SchwobDepartment of Policlinics, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2071-1005
Alix MiautonDepartment of Policlinics, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Dusan PetrovicDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Systems, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Jean PerdrixDepartment of Policlinics, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nicolas SennDepartment of Policlinics, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Alexandre GouveiaDepartment of Policlinics, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5798-0092
Katia JatonUniversity of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Onya OpotaUniversity of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Alain MaillardVidy-Med, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Gianni MinghelliVidy-Med, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Jacques CornuzDepartment of Policlinics, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Gilbert GreubUniversity of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9529-3317
Blaise GentonDepartment of Policlinics, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Valérie D'AcremontDepartment of Policlinics, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNasopharyngeal antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs), saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal (NP) RT-PCR have shown different performance characteristics to detect patients infected by SARS-CoV-2, according to the viral load (VL)-and thus transmissibility.

methodsIn October 2020, we conducted a prospective trial involving patients presenting at testing centres with symptoms of COVID-19. We compared detection rates and performance of RDT, saliva PCR and nasopharyngeal (NP) PCR, according to VL and symptoms duration.

resultsOut of 949 patients enrolled, 928 patients had all three tests performed. Detection rates were 35.2% (95%CI 32.2-38.4%) by RDT, 39.8% (36.6-43.0%) by saliva PCR, 40.1% (36.9-43.3%) by NP PCR, and 41.5% (38.3-44.7%) by any test. For those with viral loads (VL) ≥106 copies/ml, detection rates were 30.3% (27.3-33.3), 31.4% (28.4-34.5), 31.5% (28.5-34.6), and 31.6% (28.6-34.7%) respectively. Sensitivity of RDT compared to NP PCR was 87.4% (83.6-90.6%) for all positive patients, 94.5% (91.5-96.7%) for those with VL≥105 and 96.5% (93.6-98.3%) for those with VL≥106. Sensitivity of STANDARD-Q®, Panbio™ and COVID-VIRO® Ag tests were 92.9% (86.4-96.9%), 86.1% (78.6-91.7%) and 84.1% (76.9-89.7%), respectively. For those with VL≥106, sensitivity was 96.6% (90.5-99.3%), 97.8% (92.1-99.7%) and 95.3% (89.4-98.5%) respectively. No patient with VL<104 was detected by RDT. Specificity of RDT was 100% (99.3-100%) compared to any PCR. RDT sensitivity was similar <4 days (87.8%, 83.5-91.3%) and ≥4 days (85.7%, 75.9-92.6%) after symptoms onset (p = 0.6). Sensitivity of saliva and NP PCR were 95.7% (93.1-97.5%) and 96.5% (94.1-98.1%), respectively, compared to the other PCR.

conclusionsRDT results allow rapid identification of COVID cases with immediate isolation of most contagious individuals. RDT can thus be a game changer both in ambulatory care and community testing aimed at stopping transmission chains, and even more so in resource-constrained settings thanks to its very low price. When PCR is performed, saliva could replace NP swabbing.

trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT04613310 (03/11/2020).

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Antigens, ViralCOVID-19 TestingHumansPolymerase Chain ReactionProspective StudiesSalivaSensitivity and SpecificityAntigens, Viral

Identifiers

PMID36827328
PMCPMC9955963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.