Trial reportMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2024
Communicating the Imperfect Diagnostic Accuracy of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-Tests: An Online Randomized Experiment.
Trial report in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the potential impacts of optimizing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rapid antigen test (RAT) self-testing diagnostic accuracy information.
designOnline randomized experiment using hypothetical scenarios: in scenarios 1 to 3 (RAT result positive), the posttest probability was considered to be very high (likely true positives), and in scenarios 4 and 5 (RAT result negative), the posttest probability was considered to be moderately high (likely false negatives).
settingDecember 12 to 22, 2022, during the mixed-variant Omicron wave in Australia.
participantsAustralian adults. Intervention: diagnostic accuracy of a COVID-19 self-RAT presented in a health literacy-sensitive way; usual care: diagnostic accuracy information provided by the manufacturer; control: no diagnostic accuracy information.
main outcome measureIntention to self-isolate.
resultsA total of 226 participants were randomized (control
conclusionHealth literacy sensitive formatting supported participant understanding and recall of diagnostic accuracy information. This may increase community intentions to self-isolate when there is a likely false-negative self-RAT result. Trial registration: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12622001517763). HIGHLIGHTS: Community-based diagnostic accuracy studies of COVID-19 self-RATs indicate substantially lower sensitivity (and higher risk of false-negative results) than the manufacturer-supplied information on most government public Web sites.This online randomized study found that a health literacy-sensitive presentation of the imperfect diagnostic accuracy COVID-19 self-RATs supported participant understanding and recall of diagnostic accuracy information.Health literacy-sensitive presentation may increase community intentions to self-isolate after a negative test result where the posttest probability is still moderately high (i.e., likely false-negative result).To prevent the onward spread of infection, efforts to improve communication about the high risk of false-negative results from COVID-19 self-RATs are urgently needed.
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.