ArticleInfection prevention in practice2026
Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care testing methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection in community quarantine and isolation settings.
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2026. 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.
- A comparative study of COVID-19 point-of-care detection across human biofluids using MEMS-based near-infrared spectroscopy and machine learning.Biomedical microdevices · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing has been regarded as the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In response to the sudden surge in cases that overwhelmed the healthcare system in Hong Kong, several point-of-care testing (POCT) methods have been developed for rapid COVID-19 screening. However, the diagnostic accuracy of these methods remains inadequately established. COVID-19-positive patients and negative control subjects were recruited from a community isolation centre and individuals under home quarantine. Four nasal swab samples were collected by trained operators from each subject. Three swab samples were immediately tested using conventional COVID-19 rapid antigen test (RAT), fluorescence-based RAT (Fluorescent-RAT) and POCT quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). The fourth swab sample was submitted to a certified laboratory for standard RT-PCR analysis. The sensitivity and specificity of the three rapid testing methods were evaluated against the results obtained from the certified laboratory-based RT-PCR, which served as the reference standard. The performance of the three diagnostic methods was assessed in 186 valid cases, which comprised 86 RT-PCR-confirmed positive cases and 100 negative cases. The participants' age ranged from 3 years to 94 years. The sensitivity of the Fluorescent-RAT (87.21%, 95% confidence interval [CI]:80.15%-94.27%) and the POCT qPCR (84.27%, 95% CI:76.71%-91.83%) was comparable and significantly higher than that of the conventional RAT (51.69%, 95% CI:41.30%-62.07%). All three methods demonstrated high specificity. The RAT and POCT qPCR exhibited 100% specificity (95% CI:100%), and the Fluorescent-RAT showed a specificity of 97.06% (95% CI:93.78%-100%). This study demonstrated that the Fluorescent-RAT and POCT qPCR can serve as reliable alternatives to RT-PCR for COVID-19 diagnosis, offering improved performance compared with the conventional RAT.
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.