ArticlePloS one2024
Performance of two rapid antigen tests against SARS-CoV-2 in neighborhoods of socioeconomic vulnerability from a middle-income country.
Article in PloS one, 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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs new and improved antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection (Ag-RDT) continue to be developed, assessing their diagnostic performance is necessary to increase test options with accurate and rapid diagnostic capacity especially in resource-constrained settings. This study aimed to assess the performance of two Ag-RDTs in a population-based study.
methodsWe conducted a diagnostic accuracy study in neighborhoods with high socioeconomic vulnerability in Salvador-Brazil, including individuals aged ≥12 years old who attended primary health services, between July and December 2022, with COVID-19 symptoms or who had been in contact with a confirmed case. Two Ag-RDTs were compared in parallel using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as reference standard, the PanbioTM COVID-19 Ag test (Abbott®) and Immuno-Rapid COVID-19 Ag (WAMA Diagnostic®). Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated.
resultsFor the Abbott test the sensitivity was 52.7% (95% CI: 44.3% - 61.0%), specificity 100% (95% CI: 98.7% - 100%), PPV 100% (95% CI: 95.4% - 100%) and NPV 80.4% (95% CI: 75.9% - 84.4%). For the WAMA test, the sensitivity was 53.4% (95% CI: 45.0% - 61.6%), specificity 100% (95% CI: 98.7% - 100%), PPV 100% (95% CI: 95.4% - 100%) and NPV 80.7% (95% CI: 76.2% - 84.6%). Sensitivity for the group with Cycle Threshold (CT) <24 was 82.3% (95%CI: 72.1-90.0, n = 83) for PanbioTM COVID-19 Ag test and 87.3% (95%CI: 77.9-93.8, n = 83) for Immuno-Rapid COVID-19 Ag test.
conclusionSensitivity for both Ag-RDT was lower than reported by manufacturers. In the stratified analysis, sensitivity was higher among those with lower CT values <24. Specificity was high for both rapid antigen tests. Both Ag-RDT showed to be useful for rapid diagnostic of potential cases of COVID-19. Negative results must be assessed carefully according to clinical and epidemiological information.
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.