ArticlePravention und Gesundheitsforderung2022
[SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid tests].
Article in Pravention und Gesundheitsforderung, 2022. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: For detection of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons ("severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2") quantitative Real-Time PCR (qRT-PCR) remains the gold standard. SARS-CoV‑2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) have the advantage of being fast and simple to use at any location. According to previous studies, Ag-RDTs seem to have poorer sensitivity and specificity. There are currently a few hundred Ag-RDTs available, but many of them have not been independently evaluated. Objectives: Evaluation of diagnostic performance of rapid antigen tests detecting SARS-CoV‑2 from 6 different manufacturers. Materials and methods: We performed Ag-RDTS with naso- and oropharnygeal swabs from laboratory routine which had had already resulted in a positive qRT-PCR test. To exclude possible dilution effects when samples were used for a second time, we also performed qRT-PCR analytics for already used samples. The initially measured Ct values could be confirmed. Results: Ag-RDTs showed differences in discrimination between positive and negative results. In samples with lower virus concentrations (Ct value > 30), the results were not reliable and the discrimination between negative and positive results was not unambigious. Conclusions: Ag-RDTs with high sensitivity allow the identification of highly contagious patients anywhere. There are differences between manufacturers which are important when testing patients. An independent transparent evaluation of Ag-RDTs is necessary.
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.