ArticleBMJ open2023
Validation of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 antibody test in general practice.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04779424 (Prevalence and Incidence of Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 Among Primary Healthcare Providers in Belgium During One Year of the COVID-19 Epidemic), which is not on this 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.
Prevalence and Incidence of Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 Among Primary Healthcare Providers in Belgium During One Year of the COVID-19 Epidemic
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of NADAL COVID IgG/IgM rapid test and DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay across different blood sources and substrates.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo validate a rapid serological test (RST) for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies used in seroprevalence studies in healthcare providers, including primary healthcare providers (PHCPs) in Belgium.
designA phase III validation study of the RST (OrientGene) within a prospective cohort study.
settingPrimary care in Belgium.
participantsAny general practitioner (GP) working in primary care in Belgium and any other PHCP from the same GP practice who physically manages patients were eligible in the seroprevalence study. For the validation study, all participants who tested positive (376) on the RST at the first testing timepoint (T1) and a random sample of those who tested negative (790) and unclear (24) were included.
interventionAt T2, 4 weeks later, PHCPs performed the RST with fingerprick blood (index test) immediately after providing a serum sample to be analysed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies using a two-out-of-three assay (reference test). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The RST accuracy was estimated using inverse probability weighting to correct for missing reference test data, and considering unclear RST results as negative for the sensitivity and positive for the specificity. Using these conservative estimates, the true seroprevalence was estimated both for T2 and RST-based prevalence values found in a cohort study with PHCPs in Belgium.
results1073 paired tests (403 positive on the reference test) were included. A sensitivity of 73% (a specificity of 92%) was found considering unclear RST results as negative (positive). For an RST-based prevalence at T1 (13.9), T2 (24.9) and T7 (70.21), the true prevalence was estimated to be 9.1%, 25.9% and 95.7%, respectively.
conclusionThe RST sensitivity (73%) and specificity (92%) make an RST-based seroprevalence below (above) 23% overestimate (underestimate) the true seroprevalence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04779424.
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.