ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Preemptive rapid antigen test as an emergency measure during coronavirus disease 2019 outbreaks.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We acknowledge that the rapid antigen test (RAT) has several advantages, including faster results, cost-effectiveness, and suitability for on-site self-testing. However, there is still controversy regarding the performance of the RAT for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to evaluate RAT screening in a COVID-19 outbreak situation. Methods: In this study, we developed a preemptive testing model in which a RAT was immediately followed by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) during a single screening in a high-density community outbreak to rapidly prevent transmission. The RAT and RT-PCR were performed using the Flowflex Results: Our study showed that the sensitivity and specificity of the RAT were 0.82 and 1.00, respectively. We found a slightly higher false-negative rate, corresponding to decreased sensitivity, in our data compared to the previous study; however, the difference was not statistically significant. In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in the false-positive rate, corresponding to specificity, between the two studies. Conclusion: The current results indicate that a RAT with a single screening does not pose an additional risk of inaccurate diagnosis of COVID-19 compared to serial screening. The strategy of a preemptive RAT might be an effective emergency measure to prevent COVID-19 transmission at an early stage of an outbreak.
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.