ArticleHeliyon2023
Retrospective and prospective studies evaluating the performance of the SARS-Cov-2 "AQ+ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test" from InTec on symptomatic and non-symptomatic patients.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For the last two years, the SARS-CoV-2 virus spread all around the world and led to the COVID-19 pandemic. The need of methods to control the pandemic and to propose rapid and efficient diagnostic tools has emerged. In this perspective, SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) have been developed. We performed a retrospective study on 638 collected nasopharyngeal samples used for reference RT-qPCR diagnosis to compare the AQ + COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test" from InTec (AQ + InTec test) performance with other commercially available RADT (Abbott Panbio, Roche SDBiosensor and Siemens Clinitest). We analysed the sensitivity and specificity of the different tests and showed a better overall performance of the AQ + InTec test, which was confirmed on the SARS-Cov-2 Omicron variant. We then conducted a prospective study on 844patients, to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the AQ + InTec test on nasal and nasopharyngeal samples in a point of care setting. We showed that sensitivity and specificity reach acceptable criteria (respectively 94.4% and 99.6% on nasal samples) regarding the official recommendations of the MDCG 2021-21 in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Overall, the results of these two studies confirm that the AQ + InTec test is a valuable tool for testing in a pandemic context with a high proportion of asymptomatic patients who are potential carriers for the SARS-CoV-2 virus and is performant on the most current circulating variant Omicron.
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.