ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2023
A Reagent and Virus Benchmarking Panel for a Uniform Analytical Performance Assessment of N Antigen-Based Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilizing Constrained Bicyclic Peptides forACS nano · 2026Article
- One-Step Label-Free Electrochemical Lateral Flow Immunosensor for SARS-CoV‑2 Antigen Detection.ACS measurement science au · 2025Article
- Performance and usability evaluation of three LDH-based malaria rapid diagnostic tests in Kédougou, Senegal.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- Article
- Performance and usability evaluation of three LDH-based malaria rapid diagnostic tests in Kédougou, Senegal.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- A compact stem-loop DNA aptamer targets a uracil-binding pocket in the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid RNA-binding domain.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- Antigen concentration, viral load, and test performance for SARS-CoV-2 in multiple specimen types.PloS one · 2023Article
- Specimen sharing for epidemic preparedness: Building a virtual biorepository system from local governance to global partnerships.PLOS global public health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) that detect antigen indicative of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can help in making quick health care decisions and regularly monitoring groups at risk of infection. With many RDT products entering the market, it is important to rapidly evaluate their relative performance. Comparison of clinical evaluation study results is challenged by protocol design variations and study populations. Laboratory assays were developed to quantify nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Quantification of the two antigens in nasal eluates confirmed higher abundance of N than S antigen. The median concentration of N antigen was 10 times greater than S per genome equivalent. The N antigen assay was used in combination with quantitative reverse transcription (RT)-PCR to qualify a panel composed of recombinant antigens, inactivated virus, and clinical specimen pools. This benchmarking panel was applied to evaluate the analytical performance of the SD Biosensor Standard Q COVID-19 antigen (Ag) test, Abbott Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test, Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag test, and the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag test. The four tests displayed different sensitivities toward the different panel members, but all performed best with the clinical specimen pool. The concentration for a 90% probability of detection across the four tests ranged from 21 to 102 pg/mL of N antigen in the extracted sample. Benchmarking panels provide a quick way to verify the baseline performance of a diagnostic and enable direct comparisons between diagnostic tests.
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.