Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36962111›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2021

Field evaluation of specificity and sensitivity of a standard SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic test: A prospective study at a teaching hospital in Northern Ghana.

Alhassan Abdul-Mumin, Abdulai Abubakari, Faith Agbozo, Abass Abdul-Karim, Benjamin Demah Nuertey, Kareem Mumuni, Anna-Katharina Heuschen, Lisa Hennig, Claudia M Denkinger, Olaf Müller and 1 more

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Alhassan Abdul-MuminDepartment of Paediatrics and Child Health, University for Development Studies, School of Medicine, Tamale, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3792-5384
Abdulai AbubakariDepartment of Global Health, University for Development Studies, School of Public Health, Tamale, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7906-9419
Faith AgbozoDepartment of Family and Community Health, University of Health and Allied Sciences, School of Public Health, Hohoe, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7707-5658
Abass Abdul-KarimZonal Public Health and Reference Laboratory, Ghana Health Service, Tamale, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5606-1123
Benjamin Demah NuerteyTamale Teaching Hospital, Tamale, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4946-508X
Kareem MumuniTamale Teaching Hospital, Tamale, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0544-9435
Anna-Katharina HeuschenInstitute for Global Health, University Hospital Heidelberg, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9921-6562
Lisa HennigInstitute for Global Health, University Hospital Heidelberg, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6982-4655
Claudia M DenkingerDivision of Tropical Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases, University Hospital Heidelberg, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7216-7067
Olaf MüllerInstitute for Global Health, University Hospital Heidelberg, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7852-3088
Albrecht JahnInstitute for Global Health, University Hospital Heidelberg, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8181-9795
Heidelberg University · DETamale Teaching Hospital · GHGhana Health Service · GHUniversity for Development Studies · GHUniversity of Health and Allied Sciences · GH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2 in Africa is rather limited. Antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are a cheap and rapid alternative to reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests, but there is little data about their performance under real life conditions in tropical countries. The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of a standard Ag-RDT in a population of a major hospital in northern Ghana. Prospective, cross-sectional, blinded verification of the performance of the SD Biosensor Standard Q SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT under real life conditions in 135 symptomatic patients and 58 contacts of RT-PCR positives at Tamale Teaching Hospital in February 2021. Nasopharyngeal samples were taken under standard conditions and tested against RT-PCR in the hospital laboratory. 193 participants (median age 35 years, 109 male) were included into the study for which both RT-PCR test and Ag-RDT results were available. A total of 42 (22%) were RT-PCR positive. Of the 42 RT-PCR positives, 27 were Ag-RDT positive, resulting in a sensitivity of 64% (95% CI 49-79). Sensitivity among symptomatic patients was 58% (95% CI 38-78). 123 were identified Ag-RDT negatives of the 151 RT-PCR negatives, resulting in a specificity of 81% (95% CI 75-87). SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs appear to have a rather low sensitivity and particularly a low specificity under real life conditions in Africa. The role of existing Ag-RDTs in countries with high-temperature climates and limited resources still needs more data and discussion.

Identifiers

PMID36962111
PMCPMC10021174
OpenAlexW4226491454

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read1
measurements read114
identifiers read3
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.