ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid diagnostic tests in Nigeria: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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
51 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic challenged health systems globally. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the gold standard for detecting the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples. Rapid diagnostic test (RDT) kits for COVID-19 have been widely used in Nigeria. This has greatly improved test turnover rates and significantly decreased the high technical demands of RT-PCR. However, there is currently no nationally representative evaluation of the performance characteristics and reliability of these kits. This study assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of ten RDT kits used for COVID-19 testing in Nigeria. This large multi-centred cross-sectional study was conducted across the 6 geo-political zones of Nigeria over four months. Ten antigen (Ag) and antibody (Ab) RDT kits were evaluated, and the results were compared with RT-PCR. One thousand, three hundred and ten (1,310) consenting adults comprising 767 (58.5%) males and 543 (41.5%) females participated in the study. The highest proportion, 757 (57.7%), were in the 20-39 years' age group. In terms of diagnostic performance, Lumira Dx (61.4, 95% CI: 52.4-69.9) had the highest sensitivity while MP SARS and Panbio (98.5, 95% CI: 96.6-99.5) had the highest specificity. For predictive values, Panbio (90.7, 95% CI: 79.7-96.9) and Lumira Dx (81.2, 95% CI: 75.9-85.7) recorded the highest PPV and NPV respectively. Ag-RDTs had better performance characteristics compared with Ab-RDTs; however, the sensitivities of all RDTs in this study were generally low. The relatively high specificity of Ag-RDTs makes them useful for the diagnosis of infection in COVID-19 suspected cases where positive RDT may not require confirmation by molecular testing. There is therefore the need to develop RDTs in-country that will take into consideration the unique environmental factors, interactions with other infectious agents, and strains of the virus circulating locally. This may enhance the precision of rapid and accurate diagnosis of COVID-19 in Nigeria.
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.