ReviewAustralian prescriber2023
Testing for COVID-19: a 2023 update.
Review in Australian prescriber, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19 rapid antigen tests approved for self-testing in Australia: published diagnostic test accuracy studies and manufacturer-supplied information. A systematic review.The Medical journal of Australia · 2023Pooled it
- Communicating the Imperfect Diagnostic Accuracy of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-Tests: An Online Randomized Experiment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), including polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays, are more sensitive for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 than rapid antigen tests (RATS), and are the gold standard for diagnosis of acute COVID-19. However NAATs can remain positive for weeks following infection due to low-level shedding of non-viable viral fragments. RATs (in particular self-testing) are the mainstay of COVID-19 diagnosis due to their convenience, speed and high specificity. The sensitivity of RATs is highest within seven days of symptom onset. A negative RAT result may warrant a NAAT or repeat RAT for confirmation. The presence of spike antibodies is consistent with either vaccination or infection. Nucleocapsid antibodies suggest a previous infection. Serological tests measuring neutralising antibodies that infer immunity are not readily available.
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.