ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2024
Self-administered versus clinician-performed BinaxNOW COVID rapid test: a comparison of accuracy.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of self-collection of nasal swab specimens for COVID-19 diagnostic testing in children in the United States, 2020-2023.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Real-World Performance of COVID-19 Antigen Tests: Predictive Modeling and Laboratory-Based Validation.JMIRx med · 2025Article
- Airborne Cyanobacterial Toxins and Their Links to Neurodegenerative Diseases.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
We conducted a single-center study at a free community testing site in Baltimore City to assess the accuracy of self-performed rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19. Self-administered BinaxNOW RATs were compared with clinician-performed RATs and against a reference lab molecular testing as the gold standard. Of the 953 participants, 14.9% were positive for SARS- CoV-2 as determined by RT-PCR. The sensitivity and specificity were similar for both self- and clinician-performed RATs (sensitivity: 83.9% vs 88.2%,
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.