Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39005900›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Assessing the performance of LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 Ag test in detecting Omicron lineages: 2022-2023 study.

Silvia Cocchio, Michele Nicoletti, Claudia Cozzolino, Maria Mazzitelli, Nicola Bonadiman, Samuele Gardin, Lolita Sasset, Melissa Zucconi, Anna Maria Cattelan, Vincenzo Baldo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 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

10 authors.

Silvia CocchioDepartment of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences, and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Michele NicolettiDepartment of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences, and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Claudia CozzolinoDepartment of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences, and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Maria MazzitelliInfectious and Tropical Diseases Unit, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.
Nicola BonadimanInfectious and Tropical Diseases Unit, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.
Samuele GardinInfectious and Tropical Diseases Unit, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.
Lolita SassetInfectious and Tropical Diseases Unit, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.
Melissa ZucconiDepartment of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences, and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Anna Maria CattelanInfectious and Tropical Diseases Unit, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.
Vincenzo BaldoDepartment of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences, and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The introduction of rapid antigen tests revolutionized the approach to SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, offering prompt and accurate results with high sensitivity and specificity. Although it is more cost- and time-saving than the gold standard, real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), the efficacy in general population screening in both hospital- and community-based settings remains unknown. Moreover, rapid antigen testing is limited by qualitative results. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic reliability of the LumiraDx™ rapid antigen test during the Omicron era and to investigate its quantitative (analogue-to-digital converter (ADC)) results in comparison with RT-PCR Ct values. Methods: This prospective study included all adult patients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 symptoms who were not hospitalised and did not require oxygen supplementation, consented to participate, and attended the Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit of Padua University Hospital from July 14th, 2022 to January 3rd, 2023. The patients underwent two different tests simultaneously: a nasal LumiraDx™ swab and a real-time RT-PCR assay performed on a nasopharyngeal swab. Sampling was repeated several times for a subset of subjects. Results: We enrolled 266 consecutive participants and collected 601 pairs of LumiraDx™ and RT-PCR samples. The most prevalent variant was BA.4/BA.5 Omicron (60.2 %). The sensitivity and specificity of LumiraDx™ test when compared to real-time RT-PCR results as the reference standard were 93.1 % and 79.75 %, respectively. No significant differences in diagnostic reliability were found based on the available characteristics, age, sex, symptom status, or COVID-19 variant, except for the days from symptom onset. According to the multilevel logistic regression analysis, the only independent variable significantly associated with test concordance was the Ct value (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.56, p < 0.001). Significant differences in quantitative ADC values were found between false negative (FN) Conclusions: This study showed that LumiraDx™ test is reliable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in patients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. This finding confirms the efficacy of rapid antigen tests in monitoring vulnerable individuals during the current post-vaccination era. When compared with the RT-PCR, LumiraDx™ test effectively quantitatively distinguishes between FN and TN cases, as well as FP and true TP tests, despite inaccuracies in qualitative results.

Indexed as

CoronavirusesCOVID-19Diagnostic testingOmicronQuantitative testRapid antigen testingRT-PCRSARS-CoV-2SensitivitySpecificityViral epidemic

Identifiers

PMID39005900
PMCPMC11239691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.