ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Comparison of Manual versus Automated SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing in Asymptomatic Individuals.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has infected more than 770 M people and killed more than 6.9 M persons worldwide. In the USA, as of August 2023, it has infected more than 103 M people while causing more than 1.1 M deaths. During a pandemic, it is necessary to rapidly identify those individuals infected with the virus so that disease transmission can be stopped. We examined the sensitivity of the Quidel Rapid Antigen test on the manual Sofia 2 platform and the Beckman-Coulter antigen test on the automated DxI-800 system for use in screening asymptomatic individuals at the University of Arizona from March through May 2021. A total of 378 asymptomatic subjects along with 176 validation sets of samples in 23 independent experiments were assessed in side-by-side antigen testing using both assays. Nasal swabs and saliva were used as viral sources. Manual testing (Quidel) was compared with automated testing (Beckman) methods for cost and efficiency. Limit dilution of viral antigen spiked samples was performed to determine sensitivity to antigen load by the tests. The results between the two tests were found to be concordant. Both tests were comparable in terms of detecting low numbers of positive subjects in the asymptomatic population. A concordance of 98% was observed between the two tests. Experiments also demonstrated that saliva specimens were an acceptable viral source and produced comparable results for each test. Overall, the two methods were interchangeable.
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.