ArticlePloS one2023
Efficacy of novel SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests in the era of omicron outbreak.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Following the outbreak of Omicron and its subvariants, many of the currently available rapid Ag tests (RATs) showed a decrease in clinical performance. In this study, we evaluated the clinical sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test 2.0 for nasopharyngeal swabs and SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test 2.0 Nasal for nasal swabs in 56 symptomatic individuals by comparing the results between RATs, RT-PCR, Omicron RT-PCR, and whole-genome sequencing (WGS). Furthermore, sequences of the Omicron subvariants' spike proteins were subjected to phylogenetic analysis. Both novel RATs demonstrated a high sensitivity of up to 92.86%, (95% CI 82.71%- 98.02%), 94.23%, (95% CI 83.07%- 98.49%), and 97.95% (95% CI 87.76%- 99.89%) compared to the RT-PCR, Omicron RT-PCR, and WGS, respectively. The clinical sensitivity of RATs was at its highest when the Ct value was restricted to 15≤Ct<25, with a sensitivity of 97.05% for RdRp genes. The Omicron RT-PCR analysis revealed subvariants BA.4 or BA.5 (76.8%) and BA.2.75 (16.1%). Subsequently, the WGS analysis identified BA.5 (65.5%) as the dominant subvariant. Phylogenetic analysis of the spike protein of Omicron's subvariants showed a close relationship between BA.4, BA.5, and BA.2.75. These results demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test 2.0 and SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test 2.0 Nasal are considered useful and efficient RATs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, particularly during the current Omicron subvariants wave.
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.