ArticleScientific reports2024
The diagnostic performance evaluation of Panbio and STANDARD Q coronavirus disease 2019 antigen tests against real-time polymerase chain reaction in southern Ethiopia.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created a public health crisis. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Panbio and STANDARD Q COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) against the real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) at one of the largest hospitals in southern Ethiopia. Nasopharyngeal samples, which were collected during the pandemic from individuals suspected of COVID-19 and stored at - 70 °C, were analyzed in June and July 2022. The performance of the Panbio COVID-19 antigen tests was evaluated in 200 randomly selected nasopharyngeal samples (100 positives and 100 negatives for severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 by RT-PCR). The STANDARD Q test was evaluated using 100 positive and 50 negative samples. The respective sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values were 88%, 99%, 98.9% and 89.2% for the Panbio test and 91%, 98%, 98.9% and 84.5%, for the STANDARD Q test. The kappa values were 0.87 for the Panbio and 0.86 for the STANDARD Q test. Based on the findings presented here, the RDTs could be utilized as an alternative to conventional RT-PCR when it is challenging to diagnose COVID-19 owing to a lack of time, skilled lab personnel, or suitable equipment or electricity.
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.