ArticleInfection & chemotherapy2024
Usefulness of the Rapid Antigen Test in Detecting SARS-CoV-2 for Infection Control in Hospitals.
Article in Infection & chemotherapy, 2024. 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.
- Systemic atopy and upper-airway disease define susceptibility to incident asthma after COVID-19 in Korea.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Response to Usefulness of the Rapid Antigen Test in Detecting SARS-CoV-2 for Infection Control in Hospitals.Infection & chemotherapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed at evaluating the diagnostic performance of rapid antigen test (RAT) compared to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and the possible transmission of infection to close contacts from patients with negative RAT and positive PCR results. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients/guardians urgently requiring admission to the ward on the same day had been hospitalized with RAT-negative result before the PCR results were available. We performed an epidemiologic investigation of the close contacts of those with negative RAT but positive PCR results after hospitalization.
resultsA total of 4,237 RATs were performed from March to August 2022. When the PCR test was used as the reference, RAT had a sensitivity of 28.8% (17/59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 17.8 - 42.1), a specificity of 100% (4,220/4,220; 95% CI, 99.9 - 100.0), a positive predictive value of 100.0% (17/17; 95% CI, 100.0 - 100.0), and a negative predictive value of 99.0% (4,178/4,220; 95% CI, 99.3 - 99.8). The epidemiologic investigation revealed that among the 32 patients with negative RAT and subsequent positive PCR results after admission into multi-patient room, two (6.3%) showed secondary coronavirus disease 2019.
conclusionThe secondary transmission rate from patients with negative RAT and positive PCR results was low. Our data suggest that RAT may be useful for rapid exclusion of high transmissible cases. However, further evaluation using whole genome sequencing is needed to determine the potential for transmissibility in cases showing a negative RAT but a positive PCR result.
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.