Diagnostic performance of a novel digital immunoassay (RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2): A prospective observational study with nasopharyngeal samples
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy, ISSN: 1341-321X, Vol: 28, Issue: 1, Page: 78-81
2022
- 5Citations
- 19Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations5
- Citation Indexes5
- Captures19
- Readers19
- 19
Article Description
Digital immunoassays are generally regarded as superior tests for the detection of infectious disease pathogens, but there have been insufficient data concerning SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. We prospectively evaluated a novel digital immunoassay (RapidTesta SARS-CoV-2). Two nasopharyngeal samples were simultaneously collected for antigen tests and Real-time RT-PCR. During the study period, 1127 nasopharyngeal samples (symptomatic patients: 802, asymptomatic patients: 325) were evaluated. For digital immunoassay antigen tests, the sensitivity was 78.3% (95% CI: 67.3%–87.1%) and the specificity was 97.6% (95% CI: 96.5%–98.5%). When technicians visually analyzed the antigen test results, the sensitivity was 71.6% (95% CI: 59.9%–81.5%) and the specificity was 99.2% (95% CI: 98.5%–99.7%). Among symptomatic patients, the sensitivity was 89.4% (95% CI; 76.9%–96.5%) with digital immunoassay antigen tests, and 85.1% (95% CI; 71.7%–93.8%) with visually analyzed the antigen test, respectively. The sensitivity of digital immunoassay antigen tests was superior to that of visually analyzed antigen tests, but the rate of false-positive results increased with the introduction of a digital immunoassay device.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1341321X2100297X; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2021.10.024; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85119065725&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34736814; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1341321X2100297X; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2021.10.024
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know