ArticleThe Pan African medical journal2023
Comparative analysis of SARS-CoV-2 detection methods using stool, blood, and nasopharyngeal swab samples.
Article in The Pan African medical journal, 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: as a public health policy, the ongoing global coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination drives require continuous tracking, tracing, and testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Diagnostic testing is important in virus detection and understanding its spread for timely intervention. This is especially important for low-income settings where the majority of the population remains untested. This is well supported by the fact that of about 9% of the Kenyan population had been tested for the virus. Methods: this was a cross-sectional study conducted at the Kisumu and Siaya Referral Hospitals in Kenya. Here we report on the sensitivity and specificity of the rapid antigen detection test (Ag-RDT) of SARS-CoV-2 compared with the quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) using stool and nasopharyngeal swab samples. Further, the mean Immunoglobulin M (IgM) and Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody levels among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals in western Kenya were evaluated. Results: the sensitivity and specificity of Ag-RDT were 76.3% (95% CI, 59.8-88.6%) and 96.3% (95% CI, 87.3-99.5%) with a negative and positive predictive value of 85% (95% CI, 73.8%-93.0%) and 93% (95% CI, 78.6%-99.2%) respectively. There was substantial agreement of 88% (Kappa value of 0.75, 95% CI, 0.74-0.77) between Ag-RDT and nasopharyngeal swab RT-qPCR, and between stool and nasopharyngeal swab RT-qPCR results (83.7% agreement, Kapa value 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.80). The mean IgM and IgG antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 were not different in asymptomatic individuals, 1.11 (95% CI, 0.78-1.44) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.65-1.11) compared to symptomatic individuals 4.30 (95% CI 3.30-5.31) and 4.16 (95% CI 3.32 -5.00). Conclusion: the choice of an appropriate SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic, screening, and surveillance test should be guided by the specific study needs and a rational approach for optimal results.
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.