Evaluation and clinical implications of the time to a positive results of antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2

  1. Yusaku Akashi
  2. Yoshihiko Kiyasu
  3. Yuto Takeuchi
  4. Daisuke Kato
  5. Miwa Kuwahara
  6. Shino Muramatsu
  7. Atsuo Ueda
  8. Shigeyuki Notake
  9. Koji Nakamura
  10. Hiroichi Ishikawa
  11. Hiromichi Suzuki

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.jiac.2021.10.026
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.09.21258157: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Nasopharyngeal samples were obtained from SARS-CoV-2–positive patients after they provided informed consent.
    IRB: The ethics committee of Tsukuba Medical Center
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The NIID N/N2 SARS-CoV-2 Standard (Nihon Gene Research Laboratories, Inc., Japan) was used as a control to make a standard curve for the analysis of copy numbers.
    Nihon Gene Research Laboratories
    suggested: (University of Southern California; Los Angeles; USA, RRID:SCR_008093)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    This study had several limitations. First, it did not include patients who were confirmed to be negative for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. The relationship between QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag read times and the possibility of false positives was not evaluated, although we previously confirmed false positives are merely seen with this test [7]. Further, we could not compare the specificities of QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag and the DIA evaluated. Second, we did not assess whether differences in strains or sample characteristics (e.g., viscosity, blood inclusion) influenced the time to get positive results. In conclusion, QuickNavi™-COVID19 Ag yielded a positive result immediately after sample placement in most cases, and the time needed for final interpretation was longer in samples with larger Ct values. The sensitivity was comparable to that of the DIA.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.06.09.21258157v1 on medRxiv