ArticleCureus2024
An Evaluation of the Sensitivity and Specificity of Three COVID-19 Rapid Immunochromatographic Test Kits Compared to Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) Among Clinical Samples.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Performance of Allplex™ MG & AziR Assay for Detecting Macrolide-ResistantJournal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has imposed a significant burden on healthcare systems worldwide. This highlights the need for simple, rapid, and affordable diagnostic tests that can serve as alternatives to the existing costly and demanding polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay, especially in resource-limited countries like Ghana. In light of this, we aimed to assess the diagnostic efficacy of three COVID-19 rapid immunochromatographic antigen test kits vs. real-time reverse transcriptase-PCR (rRT-PCR). Methods This study evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of three COVID-19 rapid immunochromatographic antigen test kits: DG Rapid, SD Rapid, and SS Rapid. They were compared with the gold standard RT-PCR for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid antigen in 75 randomly selected archived nasopharyngeal samples. Results Of the 75 samples tested, 38 (50.7%) were positive and 37 (49.3%) were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by rRT-PCR assay. No false positives were recorded. On the other hand, the DG Rapid kit detected 30 (78.9%) true positives and eight (21.1%) false negatives. SD Rapid kit detected 28 (73.7%) true positives and 10 (26.3%) false negatives, while the SS Rapid kit detected 19 (50.0%) true positives and 19 (50.0%) false negatives. While the specificity of each test kit was 100% (95% CI), the sensitivity of the DG Rapid, SD Rapid, and SS Rapid kits was 79%, 74%, and 50% (95% CI), respectively. Higher sensitivities were recorded among samples with cycle threshold (Ct) values <29.99 for each kit. Also, the DG Rapid kit demonstrated 79% excellent agreement with rRT-PCR, while the SD Rapid and SS Rapid kits demonstrated good agreement with rRT-PCR with 73% and 50% Cohen's kappa values, respectively. Conclusions Based on our findings, DG Rapid and SD Rapid kits are reliable alternatives to rRT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially in resource-limited settings like Ghana.
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.