ArticleScientific reports2024
Public health-focused use of COVID-19 rapid antigen and PCR tests.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of molecular-based testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2-screening in workplaces: a systematic review and reporting checklist.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Integrated and streamlined microfluidic device for molecular diagnosis of pathogen through direct PCR amplification.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
During the Covid-19 pandemic, accurate PCR tests were augmented by the cheap, rapid, and logistically convenient, yet less sensitive antigen tests. In Israel, a testing policy shift was implemented due to limited availability of PCR tests during the Omicron surge. Thus, both PCR and antigen tests were used, as this was the only alternative for mass testing and surveillance at the time. Yet, evidence-based surveillance requires a robust understanding of the expected consequences of changing the testing policy. Using 41,065 paired tests performed by trained staff between January and April 2022 in Israel, we estimate how the sensitivity of antigen tests changes as a function of Ct value and other key covariates. The results reveal a logarithmic relationship between antigen detection probability and viral load, as quantified by Ct-values of the PCR tests. Further analysis shows a statistically significant association with an odds ratio of approximately 0.76 with each unit of Ct-value. The analysis suggests that in spite of their compromised sensitivity, antigen tests are a natural solution for routine use, while PCR tests should be considered in situations where a false negative result could have serious consequences. These findings are the foundations of policies that will utilize the strengths of the different tests, and achieve enhanced hybrid surveillance.
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.