ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Diagnostic performance of rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2: the COVid-19 AntiGen (COVAG) extension study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Key Insights into Respiratory Virus Testing: Sensitivity and Clinical Implications.Microorganisms · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study is the extension of the COVAG study. We compared two RATs, the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) and the SD Biosensor Q SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche), against RT-PCR on the foil of new variants. Methods: We included 888 all-comers at a diagnostic center between October 20, 2021, and March 18, 2022. RT-PCR-positive samples with a Ct value ≤32 were examined for SARS-CoV-2 variants. Findings: The sensitivity of the Abbott-RAT and Roche-RAT were 65 and 67%, respectively. For both RATs, lower Ct values were significantly correlated with higher sensitivity. For samples with Ct values ≤25, the sensitivities of the Roche-RAT and of the Abbott-RAT were 96 and 95%, for Ct values 25-30 both were 19%, and for Ct values ≥30 they were 6 and 2%, respectively. The RATs had substantially higher sensitivities in symptomatic than asymptomatic participants (76, 77%, vs. 29, 31%, for Abbott-RAT, Roche-RAT, respectively) and in participants referred to testing by their primary care physician (84, 85%) compared to participants who sought testing due to referral by the health department (55, 58%) or a warning by the Corona-Warn-App (49, 49%). In persons with self-reported previous COVID-19 sensitivities were markedly lower than in patients without previous COVID-19: 27% vs. 75% for Roche-RAT and 27% vs. 73% for Abbott-RAT. We did not find significant correlation between vaccination status and sensitivity. The Omicron variant was detected with a sensitivity of 94 and 92%, the delta variant with a sensitivity of 80 and 80% for Abbott-RAT and Roche-RAT, respectively. This difference is attributable to the lower Ct values of the Omicron samples compared to the Delta samples. When adjusted for the Ct value, a multivariate logistic regression did not show a significant difference between Omicron and Delta. In terms of sensitivity, we found no significant difference between the wild-type and the Omicron and Delta variants, but a significantly lower sensitivity to the alpha variant compared to the other variants.The specificities were > 99% overall.
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.