Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38786285›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Comparative Performance of COVID-19 Test Methods in Healthcare Workers during the Omicron Wave.

Emma C Tornberg, Alexander Tomlinson, Nicholas T T Oshiro, Esraa Derfalie, Rabeka A Ali, Marcel E Curlin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Emma C TornbergDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.
Alexander TomlinsonDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.
Nicholas T T OshiroDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.ORCID 0009-0002-9980-8095
Esraa DerfalieDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.
Rabeka A AliDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.
Marcel E CurlinDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3481-3889

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic presents unique requirements for accessible, reliable testing, and many testing platforms and sampling techniques have been developed over the course of the pandemic. Not all test methods have been systematically compared to each other or a common gold standard, and the performance of tests developed in the early epidemic have not been consistently re-evaluated in the context of new variants. We conducted a repeated measures study with adult healthcare workers presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Participants were tested using seven testing modalities. Test sensitivity was compared using any positive PCR test as the gold standard. A total of 325 individuals participated in the study. PCR tests were the most sensitive (saliva PCR 0.957 ± 0.048, nasopharyngeal PCR 0.877 ± 0.075, oropharyngeal PCR 0.849 ± 0.082). Standard nasal rapid antigen tests were less sensitive but roughly equivalent (BinaxNOW 0.613 ± 0.110, iHealth 0.627 ± 0.109). Oropharyngeal rapid antigen tests were the least sensitive (BinaxNOW 0.400 ± 0.111, iHealth brands 0.311 ± 0.105). PCR remains the most sensitive testing modality for the diagnosis of COVID-19 and saliva PCR is significantly more sensitive than oropharyngeal PCR and equivalent to nasopharyngeal PCR. Nasal AgRDTs are less sensitive than PCR but have benefits in convenience and accessibility. Saliva-based PCR testing is a viable alternative to traditional swab-based PCR testing for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Indexed as

COVID-19diagnostic testinghealthcare workersoccupational healthPCRrapid antigenSARS-CoV-2signs and symptoms

Identifiers

PMID38786285
PMCPMC11120500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.