Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38668391›Full record

ArticleMMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report2024

SARS-CoV-2 Viral Shedding and Rapid Antigen Test Performance - Respiratory Virus Transmission Network, November 2022-May 2023.

Sarah E Smith-Jeffcoat, Alexandra M Mellis, Carlos G Grijalva, H Keipp Talbot, Jonathan Schmitz, Karen Lutrick, Katherine D Ellingson, Melissa S Stockwell, Son H McLaren, Huong Q Nguyen and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Clinical Symptom Patterns as Predictors of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Healthcare Workers in Puerto Rico.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Sarah E Smith-Jeffcoat
Alexandra M Mellis
Carlos G Grijalva
H Keipp Talbot
Jonathan Schmitz
Karen Lutrick
Katherine D Ellingson
Melissa S Stockwell
Son H McLaren
Huong Q Nguyen
Suchitra Rao
Edwin J Asturias
Meredith E Davis-Gardner
Mehul S Suthar
Hannah L Kirking
RVTN-Sentinel Study Group

Funding

Mentoring in transmission of influenza and strategies for preventionK24AI148459 · NIAID · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI GRIJALVA, CARLOS G · 2020 to 2024
$893k
NIAID NIH HHS K24 AI148459
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As population immunity to SARS-CoV-2 evolves and new variants emerge, the role and accuracy of antigen tests remain active questions. To describe recent test performance, the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by antigen testing was compared with that by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral culture testing during November 2022-May 2023. Participants who were enrolled in a household transmission study completed daily symptom diaries and collected two nasal swabs (tested for SARS-CoV-2 via RT-PCR, culture, and antigen tests) each day for 10 days after enrollment. Among participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the percentages of positive antigen, RT-PCR, and culture results were calculated each day from the onset of symptoms or, in asymptomatic persons, from the date of the first positive test result. Antigen test sensitivity was calculated using RT-PCR and viral culture as references. The peak percentage of positive antigen (59.0%) and RT-PCR (83.0%) results occurred 3 days after onset, and the peak percentage of positive culture results (52%) occurred 2 days after onset. The sensitivity of antigen tests was 47% (95% CI = 44%-50%) and 80% (95% CI = 76%-85%) using RT-PCR and culture, respectively, as references. Clinicians should be aware of the lower sensitivity of antigen testing compared with RT-PCR, which might lead to false-negative results. This finding has implications for timely initiation of SARS-CoV-2 antiviral treatment, when early diagnosis is essential; clinicians should consider RT-PCR for persons for whom antiviral treatment is recommended. Persons in the community who are at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness and eligible for antiviral treatment should seek testing from health care providers with the goal of obtaining a more sensitive diagnostic test than antigen tests (i.e., an RT-PCR test).

Indexed as

Antigens, ViralCOVID-19COVID-19 Serological TestingSARS-CoV-2Virus SheddingAdolescentAdultAgedCOVID-19 Nucleic Acid TestingCOVID-19 TestingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificityUnited StatesAntigens, Viral

Identifiers

PMID38668391
PMCPMC11065460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.