ArticleHeliyon2024
Rapid antigen test as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection: Head-to-head comparison with qRT-PCR in Ethiopia.
Article in Heliyon, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance evaluation of Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay against RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection and surveillance in Ethiopian referral hospitals: cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparison of the analytical and clinical sensitivities of 34 rapid antigen tests with prevalent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Methods: This study was conducted at six referral hospitals in Oromia Region, Ethiopia. One thousand seven hundred twenty-one patients who visited the hospitals for various medical conditions were tested with qRT-PCR and/or Ag-RDTs. Qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen was performed using the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag rapid test device. Results: Compared with qRT-PCR, Ag-RDTs had a sensitivity of 33.3 % (95%CI: 30.9%-35.9 %) and a specificity of 99.3 % (95%CI: 98.8%-99.7 %) to detect active SARS-CoV-2 infection. The area under the receiver operator curve was 0.67 (95%CI: 0.63-0.69). The sensitivity of Ag-RDTs appeared high in patients with shortness of breath (73.3 %) and those presenting with all three symptoms - fever, cough, and dyspnea (71.4 %). In all instances, specificity was more than 98 %. The Ag-RDT positivity rate also correlated well with viral load: 51.7 % in cases with cycle threshold (Ct) < 25 (high viral load) and only 3.4 % when Ct > 25 (low viral load). Conclusion: Although Ag-RDT for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 is a good option as a point-of-care screening tool, it has a low sensitivity to detect active infections. Using Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid test for diagnostic and treatment decisions may lead to a false negative, resulting in patient misdiagnosis, ultimately contributing to disease spread and poor patient outcome.
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.