ArticleInfectious diseases & clinical microbiology2023
Clinical Evaluation of Commercial HARDSON COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test Kit for Routine COVID-19 Diagnosis.
Article in Infectious diseases & clinical microbiology, 2023. 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
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the commercial HARDSON COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test Kit for diagnosing COVID-19 among the Iranian population by compared with the results of commercial RT-PCR. Materials and Methods: Two nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from each patient. One swab was tested with HARDSON COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test Kit, and the second swab was placed in 3 mL of a virus-transmitted inactivated media for RT-PCR testing. Then, the results of both tests were compared to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the rapid antigen test. Results: A total of 275 suspected COVID-19 patients' samples were collected to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of HARDSON COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test Kit. In this study, 162 positive and 113 negative samples were evaluated. As a result, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of HARDSON COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test Kit were 90%, 100%, and 94%, respectively. Conclusion: The diagnostic kit analyzed in this study indicated excellent specificity and a relatively good overall sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19 when compared with the RT-PCR detection kit. Based on the result of this study, COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test Kit indicated a good sensitivity (96%) in low cycle threshold (Ct) value, and it would be recommended to be integrated into routine diagnostic laboratories and used as an at-home rapid antigen test.
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.