ArticleBioMed research international2026
Evaluation of the Analytical Performance of the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Antigenic Test in Suspected COVID-19 Cases in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso.
Article in BioMed research international, 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.
- Evaluation of the Analytical Performance of the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Antigenic Test in Suspected COVID-19 Cases in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso.BioMed research international · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of alternative technique such as rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) is needed in countries with limited resources for fast tracking of COVID-19 cases. This study evaluated the performance of the STANDARD Q COVID-19 antigen test compared with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) among suspected COVID-19 cases using nasopharyngeal and/or oropharyngeal swabs in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from April to September 2021. The respiratory secretions of suspected COVID-19 cases were collected at the Virology Laboratory of Sourô Sanou University Hospital in Bobo-Dioulasso. The respiratory secretions consisted of nasopharyngeal or combined nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs. Each sample was analyzed using the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag test and RT-PCR on the Abbott m2000 RealTime system. Results: A total of 152 respiratory specimens were collected from suspected COVID-19 cases and processed in this study. The sensitivity and specificity of the Ag-RDT were 26.32% (9.15-57.20) and 98.65% (92.7-99.9), respectively, in the suspected cases with nasopharyngeal swabs from suspected cases, while a sensitivity of 25.0% (3.2-65.1) and a specificity of 98.65% (92.7-99.9) were shown with combined nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs from suspected cases. The accuracy and Cohen's kappa of the test were 83.87% and 0.36 in suspected cases with nasopharyngeal swabs from suspected cases, while they were 83.37% and 0.32 in oropharyngeal swabs. In our study, Ag-RDT was not sensitive on the specimens of suspected COVID-19 cases with Ct values ≥ 20, whereas its sensitivity increased to 41.18% (18.4-67.1) on specimens with Ct < 20. Conclusion: The study findings have shown that the Ag-RDT is useful in suspected COVID-19 cases. However, the sensitivity of the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag test was low with minimal agreement in comparison to RT-PCR on the Abbott m2000rt system.
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.