ArticleDie Anaesthesiologie2023
[Diagnostic performance of two antigen-tests compared to one PCR-Test to detect SARS-CoV-2 in an emergency department and emergency service].
Article in Die Anaesthesiologie, 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, 1 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the German hospital landscape and emergency care the COVID-19 pandemic was a stress test. Emergency medical health care in Germany is ensured by the supply chain between prehospital emergency rescue and clinical emergency care in the emergency rooms. In hospitals and emergency care settings a rapid, simple, accurate, and cost-effective test is needed to identify SARS-CoV‑2. In the central emergency department it is important to strictly separate patients with suspected COVID-19 from non-infected emergency persons.
methodsGiven the background mentioned above, the performance of antigen tests in the ambulance service of the city Jena and the central emergency department of the university hospital Jena was analysed and in addition verified by using the RT-PCR gold standard. Several multiple testing procedures were performed by using antigen tests in the ambulance service and the central emergency department, and by using one or both of these antigen tests followed by the RT-PCR test. A total of 980 patients were included in the study over a two-month period (October/November 2022).
resultsThe average age of all patients was 65 years. More than half of the actively treated patients came from the city of Jena. The sensitivity and specificity of the antigen tests were 66.7% and 99.2% in the clinical setting (the central emergency department) and 68.8% and 96.7% in the prehospital setting (in the ambulance service) compared to RT-PCR. In the prehospital setting the sensitivity of the antigen testing was slightly higher (2%) than the clinical antigen testing. Regarding the parallel testing, 6% of antigen tests had a false negative SARS-CoV‑2 antigen test result in the ambulance service and 4.6% of antigen tests had a false negative SARS-CoV‑2 antigen test result in the central emergency department. The false-negative antigen tests, and thus the potentially unrecognized individuals, were further reviewed by considering the Ct-value.
conclusionThe use of antigen testing in the ambulance service and the emergency department can lead to a quick classification of COVID and non-COVID areas of an emergency department. The measurement accuracy of antigen testing in the ambulance service and central emergency department is not equivalent to the RT-PCR. Nevertheless, antigen testing is a useful initial screening tool for early detection of SARS-CoV‑2 in prehospital and clinical settings. Dual antigen testing may be useful for more accurate diagnosis of the SARS-CoV‑2 pathogen.
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.