ArticleBMC infectious diseases2023
The evaluation of a rapid microfluidic immunofluorescence antigen test in detecting the infectiousness of COVID-19 patients.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Novel Strategies to Profile SARS-CoV-2 and Human Lung Proteome: Inflammatory Pathways in the Spotlight.BioMed research international · 2025Review
- Au@Pt@Pd nanozymes based lateral flow immunoassay for quantitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein in nasal swab samples.Mikrochimica acta · 2024Article
- Assessing the performance of LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 Ag test in detecting Omicron lineages: 2022-2023 study.Heliyon · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA test-based strategy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is one of the measures to assess the need for isolation and prevention of infection. However, testing with high sensitivity methods, such as quantitative RT-PCR, leads to unnecessary isolation, whereas the lateral flow antigen test shows low sensitivity and false negative results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag test (Lumira Ag), a rapid microfluidic immunofluorescence method, in assessing infectivity.
methodsThis study was performed from March 2022 to July 2022. A pair of nasopharyngeal swab samples were obtained from each patient with mild COVID-19. One swab was used for Lumira Ag testing, and the other for quantitative RT-PCR testing and virus culture.
resultsA total of 84 patients were included in the study. Among them, PCR, Lumira Ag test, and virus culture indicated positivity for 82, 66, and 24 patients, respectively. When comparing the Lumira Ag test to virus culture, its sensitivity was 100.0% (24/24), specificity, 30.0% (18/60); positive predictive value, 36.3% (24/66); and negative predictive value (NPV), 100.0% (18/18). The positive sample for virus culture was observed until the ninth day from the onset of symptoms, while the Lumira Ag test was observed until day 11.
conclusionsThe Lumira Ag test showed high sensitivity and NPV (100% each) compared to virus culture. A test-based strategy using the Lumira Ag test can effectively exclude COVID-19 infectiousness.
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.