ArticleScientific reports2023
Antigen test swabs are comparable to nasopharyngeal swabs for sequencing of SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Respiratory Virus Detection and Sequencing from SARS-CoV-2-Negative Rapid Antigen Tests.Emerging infectious diseases · 2025Article
- SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance using rapid point of care COVID-19 antigen tests at public test sites in California.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- From Emergence to Evolution: Dynamics of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant in Florida.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Suitability of RNA from Positive SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Tests for Whole Virus Genome Sequencing and Variant Identification to Maintain Genomic Surveillance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing and whole genome sequencing following RNA recovery from used BinaxNOW COVID-19 antigen self tests.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Viral genomic surveillance has been integral in the global response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Surveillance efforts rely on the availability of representative clinical specimens from ongoing testing activities. However, testing practices have recently shifted due to the widespread availability and use of rapid antigen tests, which could lead to gaps in future monitoring efforts. As such, genomic surveillance strategies must adapt to include laboratory workflows that are robust to sample type. To that end, we compare the results of RT-qPCR and viral genome sequencing using samples from positive BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Card swabs (N = 555) to those obtained from nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs used for nucleic acid amplification testing (N = 135). We show that swabs obtained from antigen cards are comparable in performance to samples from NP swabs, providing a viable alternative and allowing for the potential expansion of viral genomic surveillance to outpatient clinic as well as other settings where rapid antigen tests are often used.
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.