Comparison of SARS-COV-2 nasal antigen test to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR in mildly symptomatic patients
Abdulrahman, A.; Mustafa, F.; AlAwadhi, A. I.; Alansari, Q.; AlAlawi, B.; AlQahtani, M.
Show abstract
IntroductionCOVID 19 has been vastly spreading since December 2019 and the medical teams worldwide are doing their best to limit its spread. In the absence of a vaccine the best way to fight it is by detecting infected cases early and isolate them to prevent its spread. Therefore, a readily available, rapid, and cost-effective test with high specificity and sensitivity for early detection of COVID 19 is required. In this study, we are testing the diagnostic performance of a rapid antigen detection test in mildly symptomatic cases. (RADT). MethodsThe study included 4183 patients who were mildly symptomatic. A nasal sample for the rapid antigen test and a nasopharyngeal sample was taken from each patient. Statistical analysis was conducted to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and kappa coefficient of agreement. ResultsThe prevalence of COVID 19 in the study population was 17.5% (733/4183). The calculated sensitivity and specificity were 82.1% and 99.1% respectively. Kappas coefficient of agreement between the rapid antigen test and RT-PCR was 0.859 (p < 0.001). A stratified analysis was performed and it showed that the sensitivity of the test improved significantly with lowering the cutoff Ct value to 24. ConclusionThe results of the diagnostic assessment of nasal swabs in the RADT used in our study are promising regarding the potential benefit of using them as a screening tool in mildly symptomatic patients. The diagnostic ability was especially high in cases with high viral load. The rapid antigen test is intended to be used alongside RT-PCR and not replace it. RADT can be of benefit in reducing the use of PCR.
Matching journals
The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Laboratory and field evaluation of the STANDARD Q and Panbio™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test in Namibia using nasopharyngeal samples 96%
- Evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 96%
- Evaluating diagnostic accuracies of Panbio ™ COVID-19 rapid antigen test and RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia using Bayesian Latent-Class Models (BLCM) 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Real-life performance of a novel antigen detection test on nasopharyngeal specimens for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis: a prospective study 96%
- Clinical evaluation of an automated, rapid mariPOC ® antigen test in screening of symptomatics and asymptomatics for SARS-CoV-2 infections 95%
- Evaluation Of A New “All In One” Sars-Cov-2 Antigen-Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Test And Self-Test: Diagnostic Performance And Usability On Child And Adult Population 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Evaluation of a Combo Rapid Antigen Test QuickNavi-Flu+COVID19 Ag for Simultaneous Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza Viruses 96%
- Evaluation and clinical implications of the time to a positive results of antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 96%
- The evaluation of a novel digital immunochromatographic assay with silver amplification to detect SARS-CoV-2 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Diagnostic Performance and Characteristics of Anterior Nasal Collection for the SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test: A Prospective Study in Japan 95%
- Are commercial antibody assays substantially underestimating SARS-CoV-2 ever infection? An analysis on a population-based sample in a high exposure setting 94%
- Standard blood laboratory results in SARS-CoV-19 positive patients: do they show a typical pattern? 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of commercial qPCR kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in pooled samples 94%
- Evaluation and modelling of the performance of an automated SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay according to sample type, target population and epidemic trends 94%
- Antibodies anti-SARS-CoV2 time-course in patients and vaccinated subjects: an evaluation of the harmonization of two different methods 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.