ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2025
The Performance of a Rapid Coronavirus Disease 2019 Antigen Test in Rural Gabon.
Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From the Laboratory to the Field: Assessing the Usability of the NTDscope in the Tropical Rainforest Region of Gabon.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2026Article
- Micro-costing analysis of integrating SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid detection tests into routine health facility services: a comparison of test-all versus screen-and-test models in Cameroon and Kenya.BMJ public health · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Access to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing is limited in rural sub-Saharan Africa. We evaluated the performance of the Siemens CLINITEST® rapid coronavirus disease 2019 antigen test under real-life conditions during the pandemic in rural Gabon. From August 2021 to February 2022, 277 participants were tested in Sindara and Lambaréné, Gabon, via outpatient mobile services. Of these participants, 54.6% were female, with a median age of 29 years (interquartile range: 12-55). The test performance was analyzed for the main population and for SARS-CoV-2 infected sub-populations at both study sites (Lambaréné and Sindara). We further evaluated subpopulations with higher viral loads using a cycle threshold (Ct) value restricted to <35, 30, 25, and 20. Overall test sensitivity in the main population was 33.3% (95% CI: 23.6-44.3%), improving to 83.3% (95% CI: 35.9-99.6%) with a Ct value of <20. Specificity across all populations was 100% (190/190; 95% CI: 98.1-100%). The prevalence of polymerase chain reaction-defined SARS-CoV-2 was 31.4%. The positive predictive value was 100% (95% CI: 88.1-100%), and negative predictive value was 76.6% (95% CI: 70.8-81.7%). Sensitivity in Sindara was 71.4% (95% CI: 29-96.3%) and 30% (95% CI: 20.3-41.3%) in Lambaréné. The Siemens CLINITEST® demonstrated high specificity but low sensitivity overall. However, it exceeded the WHO-defined quality criteria of 80% in participants with high viral loads, making it a useful tool in resource-limited settings.
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.