ArticleMicroorganisms2023
Clinical Evaluation and Comparison of Two Microfluidic Antigenic Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Virus.
Article in Microorganisms, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the ongoing pandemic, there is a need to identify SARS-CoV-2 and differentiate it from other respiratory viral infections in various critical settings. Since its introduction, rapid antigen testing is spreading worldwide, but diagnostic accuracy is extremely variable and often in disagreement with the manufacturer's specifications. Our study compared the clinical performances of two microfluidic rapid antigen tests towards a molecular assay, starting from positive samples. A total of 151 swabs collected at the Microbiology and Virology Laboratory of A.O. "SS Antonio e Biagio e C. Arrigo" (Alessandria, Italy) for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were simultaneously tested to evaluate accuracy, specificity, and agreement with the RT-qPCR results. Both assays showed an overall agreement of 100% for negative specimens, while positive accuracy comprised between 45.10% and 54.90%. According to the manufacturer's instructions, the greatest correlation between the antigenic and molecular assays was observed for the subset with high viral load (18/19, 94.74%), while it dramatically decreased for other subsets. Moreover, the ability to differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and Flu provides an added value and could be addressed in an epidemic context. However, an in-house validation should be performed due to differences observed in performance declared by manufacturers and those actually obtained.
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.