ArticleViruses2023
Application of a SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Immunoassay Based on Active Microfluidic Technology in a Setting of Children and Young Adults.
Article in Viruses, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancements and Future Perspectives of Microfluidic Technology in Pediatric Healthcare.Smart medicine · 2025Review
- 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To carry out effective and quick identification of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swabs and contain outbreaks, reliable and rapid tools are needed. Herein, we compared a rapid antigen test based on active microfluidic technology to an RT-qPCR assay in pediatric and young adult patients admitted to the Pediatric Emergency Unit of a Children's Hospital. Nasopharyngeal swabs collected from patients with suspected COVID-19 disease and from those without COVID-19 related symptoms, but requiring hospitalization, were performed with both antigen test and RT-qPCR assays. We included 375 patients with a median age of 5 years in the study, with an estimated overall prevalence of 7.2%. Overall, we observed a specificity of 97.4% (95% CI: 94.9-98.7) and a sensitivity of 66.6% (95% CI: 46.0-82.7) with a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 25.8 (95% CI: 12.8-51.8). In the subgroup of symptomatic patients, the specificity and the sensitivity were 95.2% (95% CI: 89.4-98.0) and 80.0% (95% CI: 44.2-96.5) respectively; LR+ was 16.6 (95% CI: 7.19-38.6). In the asymptomatic subset, the performance showed a specificity of 98.7% (95% CI: 95.8-99.7), a sensitivity of 58.8% (95% CI: 33.5-80.6), and an LR+ of 43.7 (95% CI: 13.3-144.0). Compared to RT-qPCR, the new microfluidic-based antigen test showed higher specificity (>95%) in the pediatric population, thus representing a suitable point-of-care testing (POCT) in a clinical setting with low prevalence of COVID-19.
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.