Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by rapid antigen test in comparison with RT-PCR in a public setting
Kronberg Jakobsen, K.; Schmidt Jensen, J.; Todsen, T.; Lippert, F.; Jean-Marie Martel, C.; Klokker, M.; von Buchwald, C.
Show abstract
BackgroundRapid and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential in limiting the spread of infection during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag test (SD BIOSENSOR) by comparison with RT-PCR in a public setting. MethodIndividuals aged 18 years or older who had booked an appointment for a RT-PCR test on December 26-31, 2020 at a public test center in Copenhagen, Denmark, were invited to participate. An oropharyngeal swab was collected for RT-PCR analysis, immediately followed by a nasopharyngeal swab examined by the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag test (SD BIOSENSOR). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the antigen test were calculated with test results from RT-PCR as reference. ResultsOverall, 4697 individuals were included (female n=2456, 53.3%; mean age: 44.7 years, SD: 16.9 years); 196 individuals were tested twice or more. Among 4811 paired conclusive test results from the RT-PCR and antigen tests, 221 (4.6%) RT-PCR tests were positive. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the antigen test were 69.7% and 99.5%, the positive and negative predictive values were 87.0% and 98.5%. Ct values were significantly higher among individuals with false negative antigen tests compared to true positives. ConclusionThe sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values found indicate that the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag is a good supplement to RT-PCR testing.
Matching journals
The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance Evaluation Of A SARS-COV-2 Rapid Antigentest: Test Performance In The Community In The Netherlands 97%
- Laboratory and field evaluation of the STANDARD Q and Panbio™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test in Namibia using nasopharyngeal samples 97%
- Evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test compared with real-time RT-PCR in asymptomatic individuals 97%
- Age significantly influences the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antibody assays 96%
- Self-collected oral, nasal and saliva samples yield sensitivity comparable to professional-collected oro-nasopharyngeal swabs in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis 95%
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 97%
- Clinical evaluation of an automated, rapid mariPOC ® antigen test in screening of symptomatics and asymptomatics for SARS-CoV-2 infections 96%
- Validation and Performance Comparison of Three SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assays 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of three rapid lateral flow antigen detection tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection 96%
- Evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test: potential to help reduce community spread? 95%
- Prospective evaluation of ID NOW COVID-19 assay used as point-of-care test in an Emergency Department 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the Panbio™ rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 in primary health care centers and test sites 96%
- Comparison between mid-nasal swabs and buccal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection in mild COVID-19 patients 96%
- The performance of the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test as a tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the population: A survey of routine laboratory RT-PCR test results from the region of Münster, Germany 96%
"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.