Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40773492›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Diagnostic accuracy evaluation of a point-of-care antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza in UK primary care (RAPTOR-C19).

Thomas R Fanshawe, Sharon Tonner, Philip J Turner, Margaret Głogowska, Umasha Ukwatte, Cecilia Okusi, Jade Cogdale, Maria Zambon, Brian D Nicholson, F D Richard Hobbs and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. 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

12 authors.

Thomas R FanshaweNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Sharon TonnerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7775-9926
Philip J TurnerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Margaret GłogowskaNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Umasha UkwatteNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Cecilia OkusiNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jade CogdaleRespiratory Virus Unit, Virus Reference Department, UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Maria ZambonInfluenza and Respiratory Virology & Polio Reference Service, UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8897-7881
Brian D NicholsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
F D Richard HobbsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Gail N HaywardNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
RAPTOR-C19 Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 & Flu A/B Rapid Antigen Test at the point of care.

designProspective diagnostic accuracy study.

setting17 primary care practices in England.

participants500 individuals with symptoms consistent with possible SARS-CoV-2 or influenza infection identified upon presentation to primary care or via medical note review. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values, compared to a laboratory reference standard of real-time reverse transcription PCR, using samples collected using a combined nasal and oropharyngeal swab.

resultsOf 481 participants with available index and reference test results, 5.6% (27/481) were reference standard-positive for SARS-CoV-2, 11.4% (55/481) for Influenza A and 1.9% (9/481) for Influenza B. The sensitivity of the antigen test to detect SARS-CoV-2 was 70.4% (19/27, 95% CI 49.6-86.2%) and specificity was 99.3% (451/454, 95%CI 98.1-99.9%). For Influenza A, sensitivity was 29.1% (16/55, 95% CI 17.6-42.9%) and specificity 98.6% (420/426, 97.0-99.5%), and for Influenza B, sensitivity was 22.2% (2/9, 2.8-60.0%) and specificity 98.1% (463/472, 96.4-99.1%).

conclusionsIn a primary care population of symptomatic individuals, the assay was highly specific and had moderate sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2, but did not detect the majority of influenza infections. REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14226970.

Indexed as

Antigens, ViralCOVID-19COVID-19 Serological TestingInfluenza, HumanPoint-of-Care TestingSARS-CoV-2AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildFemaleHumansInfluenza A virusInfluenza B virusMaleAntigens, Viral

Identifiers

PMID40773492
PMCPMC12331028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.