ArticlePloS one2023
Test performance of lateral flow rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 in Welsh adult care home staff using routine surveillance data.
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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electrically Readable Lateral Flow Assay Using Organic Transistors for Diagnostic Applications.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Article
- Population health and implementation outcomes of self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 using antigen detecting diagnostics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLateral flow tests (LFTs) have been used to screen for SARS-CoV2 in Wales since January 2021. Between May and August 2021, adult care home staff policy was for biweekly Innova LFT and weekly Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing while asymptomatic. We estimated test performance of LFTs conducted in adult care home staff using PCR tests as a reference standard.
methodsTest results from surveillance data were matched by individual where both LFT and PCR were taken on the same day. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and agreement using Matthew's correlation coefficient. Ct values of positive PCR results were compared by matched LFT result. Analysis was conducted using R v4.1.3.
resultsWe analysed 115,593 test pairs, 499 (0.43%) of which were PCR positive. Median age was 48 (IQR: 22) and 85.00% of the study population were female. Test result agreement was 99.59% (95%CI 99.55-99.63; MCC: 0.38, p<0.001). Sensitivity and specificity were 25.65% (95%CI 22.02-29.67) and 99.91% (95%CI 99.89-99.93), respectively. PPV was 55.90% (95%CI 49.42-62.17) and NPV was 99.68% (95%CI 99.64-99.71). Crude Ct values were significantly lower in positive PCR tests matched to a positive LFT compared to a negative LFT.
conclusionsSpecificity and negative predictive value were high in an asymptomatic population of care home staff indicating this test is an effective tool for identifying cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection during periods of high prevalence where transmission is likely, due to the presence of high viral loads. Positive predictive value results are lower than existing literature yet should be considered in light of the asymptomatic study population and low prevalence (under 1%) at the time most of these tests were conducted. Performance improved at times of higher prevalence during the study. These results suggest that whilst lateral flow tests are effective for identifying SARS-COV-2 infections with high viral loads, they are not effective at identifying cases with a low viral load. When an LFT provides a negative result, false negatives should be considered and additional diagnostic tests performed.
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.