ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2023
Rapid antigen testing for COVID-19: Decreasing diagnostic reliability, potential detrimental effects and a lack of evidence to support continued public funding of community-based testing.
Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrafast Plasmonic Nanocavity Thermocycler for Direct Real-Time Reverse Transcription PCR at a Point-of-Care Level.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2026Article
- Next-Generation Nucleic Acid-Based Diagnostics for Viral Pathogens: Lessons Learned from the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Classification of Individuals With COVID-19 and Post-COVID-19 Condition and Healthy Controls Using Heart Rate Variability: Machine Learning Study With a Near-Real-Time Monitoring Component.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- A policy roadmap for sustainable mass-testing.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- Article
- Development of an ELISA for SARS-CoV-2 Detection Focusing on Antibodies against Nucleocapsid Protein.Archives of Razi Institute · 2025Article
- Point-of-Care Diagnostics Using Self-heating Elements from Smart Food Packaging: Moving Towards Instrument-Free Nucleic Acid-Based Detection.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2025Review
- Systematic Study of Various Functionalization Steps for Ultrasensitive Detection of SARS-CoV-2 with Direct Laser-Functionalized Au-LIG Electrochemical Sensors.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2024Article
- A cell-based Papain-like Protease (PLpro) activity assay for rapid detection of active SARS-CoV-2 infections and antivirals.PloS one · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid antigen testing continues to be broadly recommended across the world for the prevention of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. We explore existing recommendations in the United States, evidence of decreasing diagnostic reliability of individual tests and potential benefits and harms of non-targeted testing. Recent research has found multiple commonly-used rapid antigen tests to now have diagnostic sensitivities below 30%, with sensitivities at or near 0% the first 48 hours of infection, using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test positivity as the gold standard. Reliance on tests with low sensitivity could paradoxically increase transmission risk through false assurance. Furthermore, widespread testing has substantial direct and indirect costs, while its effectiveness for diminishing COVID-19 disease burden or improving overall community health is unclear. Because benefit has not been demonstrated with high-quality evidence, we argue against 1. The continued recommendations for and 2. Public funding of widespread community-based rapid antigen testing.
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.